Brian Holden wrote "Consider the nature of time:"

Actually Brian you need to expand your understanding of time even futher...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDAJinQL2c0

So...its 'space_time_ continuum'...in this we humans understand 'space' well...as all our senses is designed to be aware of 'space'...as in our bodies and the environment space we find ourselves in...

but our time perspective is very limited...no rephrase that...miniscule...we have a clock thats based on earths time to take one complete rotation around the sun...and we link our life and experience to the linear time scale of this...

but 'time' is much much more...its 3-axis based ie x, y and z...meaning its got past , present and future(x _axis)...and in each of these there is Y_axis where it can speed up or slow, and multiple variations within each time moments(z_axis)...thats the best explanation I can give to this poorly understood area of science...

so basically Star Trek tv plots have lots of scientific factual possibilities...like warp field, and temporal time travel etc...all in the 'time' area...even 'antimatter' and 'dark energy'...

so more entrenched we are in 'space' as is own house, car, tv, money the further we move away from 'time' and its marvels therein...and sooner we become dodos...

sam

Let's cut to the chase. Humans are destined for dodo-hood because they are simply too stupid, too greedy and too barbaric/primitive.

They are a blight upon the world and all other creatures and their extinction cannot come soon enough.

Do you want proof? Consider the 20 to 30 million people that the imperial U.S. has killed since WW2 ended in its attempt to dominate the Earth or reflect upon the number of nukes in existence in the hands of psychopaths which could turn our lush planet into a replica of the Moon!

The name is Planck not Plank. We are simultaneously gods and dodos. Newton had a mastery of mechanics, optics and energy but spent the last part of his life pursuing various theological will of the wisps. St. Augustine's speculations on time and space were profound yet he supported the idea of original sin. This was apparently due to his neurotic guilt. In his Confessions he mentions stealing pears from an orchard as a teenager. In addition to his guilt at having normal sexual instincts he was haunted by the memory of stealing fruit.

Eventually we will become as extinct as the dodo. Until then we will continue to combine sense with nonsense.

What a daft question.

>>Is our destiny to become gods or dodos?<<

If we have learnt anything about our tiny, tiny world, is that it had a beginning, and will inevitably have an end.

The beginning was pretty boring. In Wikipedia's words, it went something like this:

"In a process known as runaway accretion, successively larger fragments of dust and debris clumped together to form planets. Earth formed in this manner about 4.54 billion years ago".

Its final moments will be slightly more spectacular. The most likely scenario is that we will be absorbed back into the sun as it decays into a red giant that encompasses the entire inner solar system. Would make a stunning movie, one suspects.

Clearly, we don't have an indefinite future anyway. Long before the fiery absorption of our planet, our atmosphere will have boiled away completely, despite the efforts of all those earnest members of the climate-change brigade. The population will inevitably blame the government of the time for doing too little, too late. Or they will blame immigration policy/uranium mining/gay rights/woodchipping etc. .

Nothing changes that much, after all.

But frivolity aside, I imagine that Mr Holden's underlying question is whether we will in some way hasten our own extinction, before the universe does it for us.

Once again the answer must be yes, we will, although the exact means is still open to some considerable speculation. Whatever the procees turns out to be, the population will inevitably blame the government of the time for doing too little, too late. Or they will blame immigration policy/uranium mining/gay rights/woodchipping etc.

Nothing changes that much, after all.

Dear Brian,

I have some really serious concerns about you, your article and the imputations therein.

We are witness to the devastation inflicted on our education system, our universities and our ability to broaden and apply our sciences, that damage has been wrought by the “socialization” of science by humanities.

I cannot get past your attempts to socialize, misinterpret or otherwise distort the founders of modern physics.

Your reference to Albert Einstein that “His idea has enabled more clever people to discover that our minds can influence subatomic particles as if they and we are part of the same thought. Our minds and matter as one! Consciousness as the ground state of the universe!”

What on earth is that all about? Who are these “more clever people” and what precisely are they saying?

Are you suggesting that because modern physics can prove that all matter is comprised of the elements from Mendelyev’s Periodic Table that therefore, one of the products of that matter, our brains, can impact upon the composite of sub-atomic particles, some of which either no longer exist or require a Large Hedron Collider to produce? Oh dear Brian.

You go on to say about Einstein, “He concluded that it could be stretched - but if time stretched, then empty space (which he defined as the distance between two localities) had to shrink.

I think you are mixing up theories here?

In his theory of relativity he suggests that time/light in the particle theory of the properties of light, can be distorted/bent by gravitational forces?

Your reference to “stretched” refers (I think), to special relativity and the concept of matter being stretched on approach to and beyond the ultimate limit of light speed? The reason for this being that matter, through its sub-atomic particles, communicates at the speed of light therefore, beyond the speed of light they cannot communicate and physics (as we know it) breaks down.

You appear to be mixing gravitational, standard model and quantum principles however, I have no idea why you would chose to do this?

I think you are losing the plot Brian.

Speaking of the subjective nature of time and how it varies from culture to culture, and in different epochs of human history too, the book introduced here is one of the most fascinating that I have ever read. As indeed is the overall work of its author.

http://www.foet.org/books/time-wars.html

The work of these authors is very useful too:
http://www.edwardthall.com
http://www.patternlanguage.com
http://generalsemantics.org