Hi Mike,

You may find this interesting:

http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/java/relativity/relativity.html

and

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-07/icc-gwi072703.php


>Hi Victor (instead of continuing in thread 874842 I thought I'd start a new thread)
>
>>>I think that the relationship between time and action may be flipped on its head soon, meaning the reality of the situation is more like "Time is what you got when something has happened" but we'll find out how correct that statement is in due time. :-)
>>
>>hmmm...gimmie a minute to think about that..hehe
>
>Think about it like this. You have:
>
>0
>
>Just a zero. Right? Its chillin' there, doing absolutely nothing. Buts its there, its information (not alot of course, but still, information).
>
>Alright, all of a sudden it changes to:
>
>1
>
>So there was a change. At first you had a zero, now you had one. From the perspective of whoever's reading this, we had a 0 for a couple seconds and now we have a 1. There were a couple seconds that elapsed in our little scenario before the change occurred, and our current intuition of time says that the time is measured by a clock (this is Einstein's defintion of time).
>
>But let's change this around for a second. Let's say that you aren't observing the 0 and 1 from your current perspective. Let's say that you are in fact a creature made up of the one's and zero's and the only world you know is the world of the one's and zero's. You as a creature, as an observer, rely on physical dynamical processes in order to observe something. In other words, the 0's and 1's that make up you as an observer need to be changing in order for you to observe.
>
>In that case, from the perspective of this creature, who only observers the one's and zero's and nothing else, what happened in between the change of the 0 and the 1?
>
>I say: nothing
>
>I think that if an observer requires changes in the information that makes up the observer in order for an observation to occur, when nothing is changing, nothing is observed. Including time.
>
>Instead, when the change between the zero and the one occurred, because there was a discrete before and after, in the context of that change of state, and only in the context of that change of state, time exists. To us, several seconds passed by as we watched the 0 change to 1. To someone whose observations are created by the changing of 0 to 1, a single instant passed by.
>
>Whats interesting in this theory of time is that there is the concept of an "instant", but there is no "single point" in time. That is because there is no dimension or continuum that exists that contains time. Time (and thus physical motion) is not continuous, and does not "pass," it simply exists within the context of a change of state.
>
>I view this as an extension to relativity theory. Relativity states that time is relative to the observer. My extension is that when a single observer observes multiple actions, not only is time relative to the observer, but time is relative to the action as well.
>
>To summarize, currently science thinks that "motion exists in time" while I am suggesting that "time exists in motion." I feel that understanding time in this way (and as a result, understanding special relativity in this way) will allow us to solve some long standing incompatibilities between Quantum Mechanics and Relativity theory.
>
>To explain my ideas in more detail (and to make this post a VFP related post *g*) I have created a prototype mathematical model:
>http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~TheUniverseInAPrg~VFP
>
>And have written two papers laying out my ideas in varying degrees of detail:
>http://www.techmocracy.net/science/zeno.htm
>http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm