At 06:42 pm 10-10-04 -0400, you wrote:
>On Thursday 07 October 2004 12:17, Nick Reiter wrote:
>> Gentlemen,
>>
>> Back in 2000, I attended a little informal meeting at
>> University of Arizona in Tucson at the Astronomy
>> Department on alternative models of gravity. One of
>> the people I met at that time was the department
>> contrarian astronomer, Dr. Bill Tifft. Tifft's
>> speciality was the observation of quantized red shift
>> anomalies in spiral galaxies. His tentative
>> hypothesis suggested that at intergalactic sizes,
>> general relativity may break down, and that space and
>> time assume properties similar to everyday life in the
>> quantum realm.
>>
>> Now this was meaty stuff, and Tifft was as you might
>> imagine a fan and intellectual sparring partner of
>> Halton Arp. However what I found even more
>> fascinating was Tifft's theory of 3D time.
>> Fascinating even given that I understood only .0001%
>> of what he was suggesting! Best I could translate
>> into Nickspeak, the time domain has a three
>> dimensional existence, but because we are in the space
>> domain, we can perceive it only (at best) as an
>> abstract 4th dimension. However in Tifft's cosmology,
>> there could be matter, planets, people, existing in
>> the time domain, and for them, space would be an
>> annoying poetic relativistic abstraction. The
>> interface is at photons - or something like that.
>>
>> A web search for Tifft's work shows up very little,
>> though a couple of years ago he had started a website
>> for the discussion of 3D time models. No idea what
>> happened to it, or him. Maybe some vortexian with
>> greater seeking skills than I can follow up. I have
>> e-mailed Tifft on a couple of occasions over the past
>> 4 years, to no avail.
>>
>> Despite my lack of understanding, it seemed elegant
>> and had a truthful character to it as theories go.
>> Still an empiricist, but when I do walk the other side
>> of the street, I am a sucker for theories that are
>> elegantly symmetrical. Old fashioned that way.
>>
>> NR
>>
>> --- Mike Carrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Jones wrote:
>> > <snip>>
>> >
>> > > A few years back (25 years to be exact) a fine,
>> > > nominally-secular, BBS series debuted on American
>> >
>> > public TV
>> >
>> > > called "Connections" which is enlightening to
>> >
>> > merge with
>> >
>> > > some of later more open-minded spiritual ideas of
>> >
>> > Bill
>> >
>> > > Moyers. James Burke, the "Connections"
>> >
>> > master-mind,
>>
>> _______________________________
>> Do you Yahoo!?
>> Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
>> http://vote.yahoo.com
>My thoughts on this are along similar lines in that a question
>arises: Why can't time have dimensions as well as space?
Of course it can - if, that is, we are prepared
to drag ourselves up out of the grooves that an
uncritical education has ground into our brains.
See;- Journal of Theoretics Vol.5-3
Guest Commentary
The Nature of Time
To quote the last para:
========================================================
"If we return to more primitive methods of measuring
time and length we will appreciate that the notion
that time and space are simple entities or simple
concepts is illusory. They are as complex as the world
they describe. Likewise the notion that time and space
are one and three-dimensional respectively is also
illusory. The dimensionality of any concept or physical
entity is merely a reflection of the hierarchical level
from which we are viewing it. Space has as many or as
few dimensions as we wish to give it, and so has time."
========================================================
Grimer
