[deleted]
time t is a numerical order of a material change in a 4d space.............Attachment #1: The_Time_of_Photon_Motion_in_Minkowski_4D_Space___arxiv.pdfAttachment #2: 1_Is_Einstein_still_misunderstood.pdf
time t is a numerical order of a material change in a 4d space.............Attachment #1: The_Time_of_Photon_Motion_in_Minkowski_4D_Space___arxiv.pdfAttachment #2: 1_Is_Einstein_still_misunderstood.pdf
The computer program to add random physics equations 1+1=2 and 2+2=4 can generate millions of combinations of rules where apples and oranges are added togther.
For 10^500 different universes each having different rules.
But the question of whether these random rules are bable and that real universes need fine tuning to work.
NB. The big crunch may be a universe where time runs backward.
A contradiction.............And a black hole in a Godel type universe may have a penrose equation that can be reversed to give a non contradictory solution to our universe.Attachment #1: physics2.exeAttachment #2: physics.exe
.
By the way, what is time? Time means that a system is energized. What is energy? All kind of energy happen by means of motion. So, energy is always and with no exception,kinetic. Are you in doubt? Think about just ONE kind of energy that don't happens by means of kinetics. Chemical? Electrical? All them are kinetic.
Time is synonym of energy and change. Into an energized system (all are), particles and parts change their spatial position all time. In this case, the position 'before' is different from the position 'after'. Is that change of position what cause "time elapse".
So, when you say 'time elapses', you are saying - first of all - that this system is energized (things change their spatial position).
In an hypothetical unenergized system, at zero absolute degrees, no time could be elapses, because nothing would be energized and - therefore - nothing would change their spatial position.
No movement can be reversed. There is no tool to stop all running particles & parts and say them to run in reverse direction. But, if that were possible, I am in doubt if that could cure the effects of past motion in every aspect.
An unidirectional arrow of time just means that one event succeeds to the next and so on. And it doesn't matter if the spin of particles rotates left or right.
Cheers.
Wilton
Dear Amrit,
Sorry, but I can't agree with this idea.
Time is synonym of energy and change. Into an energized system (all are), particles and parts change their spatial position all time. In this case, the position 'before' is different from the position 'after'. Is that change of position what cause "time elapse".
So, when you say 'time elapses', you are saying - first of all - that this system is energized (things change their spatial position).
In an hypothetical unenergized system, at zero absolute degrees, no time could be elapsed, because nothing would be energized and - therefore - nothing would change their spatial position.
"Time" is just another point of view of energy, and energy is something real, nos "mental". If you say no time is - in fact - elapsed, so you are sayng no energy happens in the cosmos.
Cheers.
Wilton
Joe blogs,
One event succeed the other and no reversion is allowed. What can happen - in fact - is the complexity of a system be dismantled, as happen when a house is burned, a car is cast/melt.
A black hole is such an event, where all matter complexity is reduced to almost none.
The big crunch is the formation of a very big "black hole". It, for sure, dismantle all matter information, and therefore, very fundamental particles are forced to exist in very small space region.
But - lets think together - it does not means time runs backward. Destruction is not a way back. Backward time would be everything walk for the same trail in opposite direction. What we all know is totally impossible, due to the chaotic and fractal nature of Nature.
Cheers,
Wilton
My hypothesis is that a big crunch is like a Godel universe in which time runs backward..................
A black hole in this universe would be a contradiction in time if you reversed the penrose equation for it you would get a non contradictory begining for our universe in terms of the mathematics.
The big crunnch is not a black hole but a reversal of the expansion which doesn't equate to a black hole.
Steve
Some fundamental things are discussed here by all persuasions.
However rationality is lauded over imagination, observation over perception, and logic over inanity.
It is as if we must all conform to a single Truth even if that Truth is a lie.
The scienific method is empirical, but being a method it serves as an admirable tool to all of any persuasion who care to use it. What the scientific method does not prescribe or proscribe is the interpretation of the result obtained by its use.
Thus like Newton we may still believe god orders and maintains the universe through angelic administrations no matter how accurate our observations.
Or like Dawkins we may believe in the inherent self administration of the universe, with no God being necessary.
One make these perceptions in varying states of awareness and consciousness, never giving full credit to the interconnected web of dependencies that flow through ones individual subjective and objective understanding, and apprehension.
To talk of time as though it existed in a different way say to water is to unilaterally miss the contribution one makes to the perception itself.
Normally one assumes, by education that light travels in a straight line. but having accepted that idea one does not then question how light bends, or even consider the implications of light "bending" as commonly described.
When one begins the process one obsrves the shifting sands of compromise,ellipsis, obfuscation,bending and general gerrymandering that goes on in constructing a sentence to even describe an empirical experience, and the reliance on hope that exists as a teacher attempts to show a student what he/she has observed.
Ones own views and experiences will never be totally understood by a community of scientists, historians,street gang, or any other conglomeration of animates.
One ha to make do with approximations.
Fundamentally motion is all we have and the observer of motion. From this coupling we may devise all else in our universe.
Time is what Kant called the act of spontaneity which generates the representation 'I think'. This act performs synthesis. I.e. time is mind processing information. Space is the medium where information is processed. Each qubit has its own processing rate (its own time) and is a parallel Universe.
https://www.academia.edu/7347240/Our_Cognitive_Framework_as_Quantum_Computer_Leibnizs_Theory_of_Monads_under_Kants_Epistemology_and_Hegelian_Dialectic
This is so ad hoc its astonishing that there are people who would not shoot it down in seconds.
So because you can make more than one shape out of a 10 dimensional object, there is more than one universe? Really?
So if the shape was 5 dimensional and you would only be able to make 10 to the 250 shapes.. That means there are that many universes? Talk about a pathological leap in logic. Seriously, this is embarrassing. The day I hear someone use a complex example that plainly defeats the nonsense that the arrow time is reversable...like brain waves shooting to a person's ear and going back into my mouth and back into my brain ----is the day someone actually thought deeply about the real world and not some fantasy on paper.
Complex Language coming out backwards of my ear is something I'd like to see Along with photons containing the full signal of the Mona Lisa shooting out my eye. Denying Free Will and prime mover causation is what leads to such abysmal reasoning. If you are willing to pay the price that photons of a beautiful super nova explosion that happened a billion years ago can shoot out of my brain and back to its spatial and temporal location you're welcome to it.
People, understand how Bias has destroyed rationale Once the fine tuning was discovered.
@ John : are you J.C.N. Smith?
if so - this is TOO weird
Lyle,
It doesn't sound at all like JCN.
John,
I certainly agree time reversal is nonsense. Here is my argument for why. I'm not sure why denying free will and "primer mover causation" is what leads to this situation. In fact, I'd argue the subconscious premise of a prime mover, ie. that there was an initial cause, now instituted as Big Bang Theory, is part of the problem leading to this formalization of the narrative, beginning to end, modeling of time, which results in the premise of "blocktime,".
Regards,
John M