Does time move in circles as opposed to in a straight line?

The easiest way for me to describe time would be to compare it to our spine. The disc would our thoughts where the space between would be increments of time. Our thoughts create the perceived differentials. The spinal cord would be our soul or spirit traveling through each time differential gathering and receiving information. Time is a manifestation of the human mind to protect the body from sensory overload. Look how little of our brain seems to be in use. Perhaps we will further evolve to the point where the brain can handle the additional stimuli.

The true nature of the universe looks more like the nervous system. http://simonrules.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007... The elliptical forms you mention are just the vehicles much like our bodies.

I say an object goes from point A to point B in some time. The first thing that comes to mind is this image. The object transverses the distance in a straight line. It could have very well taken a circular path, but that would take longer, but wait, what if it went faster to make up for the time difference? Then it would be impossible looking at the two frames to decide what path was taken. This is how time is. We can not experience absolute time, only finite segments. We do not know if time is like a DJ's record being scratched, because if it were, we would never know the difference. Interesting question.

In the Beginning there was a big bang. But what caused this? If you look at time as a straight line you see that nothing has to all the sudden stir up and start to explode. So time can not be a straight line. Now in a spiral; just behind the beginning in a spiral is a future moment. So nothing doesn't just have to stir up out of no reason. Time ends up being a 420 degree spiral. 360*[1+(1/6)]=420

There are some real thought-provoking comments in this thread, at least IMO.

I always thought of time not so much existing as a solid, but rather a concept, marked and measured by motion of some material. Interestingly to me, the first timepieces were circular (as far as we know, sundials) all the way to the modern-era wristwatch, with hands moving in a circle. Although today we see digital measurement, which takes more of a linear path of sorts.

Anyway, for the sake of illustration, imagine being isolated and unable to observe any motion of any kind. How could one prove time existed? We measure time here on earth by witnessing motion, i.e., hands on a clock, the tides, the sun or moon or even the growth of a child. But if one was in a totally motionless evironment, how could time be measured, or even proven. To ask whether time moves linear or in a circle may perhaps be an erroneous question. Is it time that moves, or material? If time is defined as motion, or at least measured, does time past the same everywhere? In our universe? or dimension? Einstein said that it all has to be measured against relativity. We've established a uniform measurement for time passage on our planet by defining the "length" of a second, minute, hour etc. However, when we refer to "time-travel" we really mean material being displaced to another location, defined by being surrounded by different material (both people and stuff) that we can either identify as belonging to another era, or not. So technically, it isn't time that travels, whether linear or circular, but rather material travelling.

So, if one accepts that time exists as motion, it isn't time that moves, regardless of direction - it's stuff that moves. And in our dimension at least, stuff can move up or down, backwards or forwards. Also, if one carries the idea one step further, can time exist purely because "stuff" exists, whether or not stuff moves to mark time. If stuff is motionless, can it still imply the existence of time, simply because stuff exists? Could motionless stuff help define time purely on the basis of duration...?

You asked a great question!

First you need to decide how good you want to get at golf. If this is something you want to do for a long period of time here is what I recommend: First off like others have said the number one best thing you can do is go and get some lessons from a golf instructor who is actually a pro at a course. This means they have gone through a program or through an apprenticeship and have been taught how to teach the game of golf, not just play it themselves. You will never get to the point where a pro golf instructor won't be the best thing for you game, even Tiger Woods has a pro golf instructor that goes with him almost everywhere. I was about an 18 handicap golfer and I got just 3 one hour lessons and because of that within a year I was down to a 9 handicap. Trust me even if you spend $200 for those three lessons that will benefit you a million times more than going and getting $200 worth of balls at the driving range and hitting them. Second, I know in other sports one of the best solutions is to practice, and then practice some more. In golf however, I totally disagree. Sometime when I go to the driving range I just cringe at the site of all these people instilling bad habits into their swing over and over and over again. Making it even harder to fix their swing if by chance they ever do have someone teach them how to swing correctly. At least try to take someone with you that is pretty good at golf that can help watch your swing and make sure your not doing something totally wrong. Once you get some lessons though if you start doing something wrong you should see it in the way you hit the ball and you should be able to go back to what you have learned and hopefully correct it yourself. Make checklists and do things like making sure you are lined up correctly by simply putting a club on the ground pointing at your target and making sure your feet are parallel with it. Third, whenever I start to slice or fade the ball off the tee unintentionally I go back to what I've learned. One of the main reasons people slice is because they lean on their back swing, not turn their body. Try putting a little more weight on your back leg and think of it as a pivot point that you are rotating your body around. Also golf is a game of opposites, if your ball is going to the right a lot of times it is because your swing is going outside in(it is going from the right of the ball to the left of the ball) this is how you hit a fade. To make the ball go to the left do the opposite, go from inside the ball to outside the ball. The best way to practice this is to put a tee one inch farther away from you than the ball is and then 6 inches in front of the ball. Try to hit the ball and the tee on the same swing. Hope this helps.

The past, present and future are all in existence simultaneously and it is we who traverse time rather than time flowing past us, so time doesn't actually move. You could compare walking on the Earth to walking through time and it is possible that time is in a loop and, given enough "time", we will return to where we were.

Another theory is that we go forwards through time while the universe is expanding but once it reaches its limit of expansion, the universe starts contracting and we move backwards through time. That would be pretty weird for us to comprehend now because cause would follow consequence and we would move towards the Big Crunch. Once we reach that, we have the Big Bang happening all over again and history repeats itself, or so the theory goes... In this scenario, we will experience "now" all over again too.

Very thought-provoking question, I like it :)

Time. Time seems to be infinite in both ways as well. There are finite periods of time. There must be, because there are cyclic processes involving real change. Since such cycles are units that can be counted, the theorems of arithmetic must be true of measurements of time, including division and multiplication.

If the division of finite periods of time is without end, time is continuous. There is every reason to believe that time is continuous, because space is continuous and space has an inherent motion. If the division of time were not as unending as the division of space, there would be no explanation of motion, because objects could not occupy continuously connected parts of space as they endured through time. (And the original and still most basic employment of the calculus to represent motion in a way that overcomes Zeno’s paradox about motion would be a misrepresentation of the world.)

It may be circles, ellipsees but the perfect is a sphere of course .affected by the mass of each and the distance between them-- Force of ATTRACTION or Repulsion is equal to the mass off two bodies,their material construction,and the distance between them keeping in mind other such masses in their region which might affect their orbits or attraction or repulsion not to mention their orbits which will be determined accordingly!!! As for TIME it is a dimension which I would consider a dimension in the space time continium that May play a part. But never a Slraight Line which has no beginning and NO end!!!

It is our PERCEPTION of time that moves in a straight line. Time is only our way of experiencing things in a "logical " way. Time doesn't really "exist" outside of our limited experience. It expands not only in circles but in ALL "directions". {a circle being a 2 dimensional object} So, Try this on , If time doesn't really exist, then yesterday , tomorrow, our past lives and future lives are all happening NOW. Live in the NOW, it is all we really have.

"Hassel does not make a circle in time, ending where the story begins--to the satisfaction of nobody and the fury of everybody--for the simple reason that time isn't circular, or linear, or tandem, discoid, syzygous, longinquitous, or pandicularted. Time is a private matter, as Hassel discovered. "

-- from "The Men Who Murdered Mohammed," by Alfred Bester