Greg,Originally posted by Greg Bernhardt
I voted for animation "A". It seems like the traditional represention of Time. How events happen on a timeline in orderly fashion, one after the other in perfect concession. kikuchiyo, could you explain your idea of representation "B"?
in convential quantum mechanics a particle can get from point X to point Y without having a continuous trajectoryOriginally posted by kikuchiyo
My original thoughts behind example B. was, what if time overlapped allowing a bit of the past to show through if you could look at it flat. Instead of the traditional linear explanation (A.) Being a graphic designer I'm forced to think about these things in a visual manner.
kikuchiyo is a work friend of mine and his orginal format and wording of his question was confusing, so he let me help him out to make it more clear. Now back on topic!Originally posted by jeff
Why does kikuchiyo's intial post say it was last edited by Greg Bernhardt on 08-27-2003 at 02:49 PM?
nice thing about a graphic (animated or not) is that one sees in it what one sees in itOriginally posted by Mentat
I think I have to go with "A". You see, "B" implies a second dimension of time, and I've never been comfortable with such an idea.
The reason I see two dimensions of time, is because these "spacelike slices" are not falling directly on top of each other. That is actually the point of that graphic (which differentiates it from option A): it doesn't require that all events fall orderly, in a series.Originally posted by marcus
nice thing about a graphic (animated or not) is that one sees in it what one sees in it
I dont understand how you see 2 dimensions of time but that is all right. I see only one----the leaves are piling "up"
mathematical idea of partial ordering
of spacelike slices if you want