My thoughts on time.

[Infinite_Observer]

I dont claim to be in anyway correct. Just wanted thoughts and corrections on my idea.

So if we assume the universe started with the big bang, all matter in a single point, and time did not exist until this single point "banged" and expansion began. Would time be the distance of that expansion and only an expression of the transfer of energy from singularity to the edges of the universe?

And then if that is the case, to travel into the future you would only need to move faster than the rate of this expansion?

[mitchellmckain]

There is no edges of the universe any more than there is an edge of the earth because neither are flat. The Big Bang is not the expansion of a ball of matter out into empty space. It is the expansion of space itself from being completely filled everywhere almost uniformly with a very hot dense state of matter and energy to being filled everywhere with a 2.725 degree Kelvin worth of cosmic background radiation and concentrations of matter condensed into the form of galaxies of various sizes and shapes.

It should be noted that whether the universe is or was ever finite is unknown, because this scenario works either way and it may not be a change in the size of the universe but only its density.


To travel into the future you just have to wait. But if you want to do so faster then I suggest getting the enormous energy required to accelerate to near the speed of light. You can also do this by traveling near very massive bodies like black holes but that I cannot recommend this, since although it is likely to be a great deal cheaper, it is also the far less safer alternative.

[TheVat]

I hate that tidal force spaghetti-fication!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification

[mitchellmckain]

I hate that tidal force spaghetti-fication!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification

In the simulations I have ran, it all happens extremely fast. Even trying to get close enough to see the event horizon with your naked eye is pretty much an impossibility. The best you can do is a quick dip into the gravity well and, hoping you survive, slow down a recording of what happened so you can see the thing. And that is not accounting for the gravitational time dilation which only makes this even worse. Oh... and of course using magnification from a distance is the best option of all. I hope they succeed with the attempt they are still working on using radio interferometry.

Hmmm... while the spaghettification depends on the size of the black hole as mentioned in the linked article, I don't think the difficulty of seeing the event horizon does. While the stretching has to do with the gravitational gradient, I believe the dynamics problem scales with the black hole.

[mitchellmckain]

Hmmm... while the spaghettification depends on the size of the black hole as mentioned in the linked article, I don't think the difficulty of seeing the event horizon does. While the stretching has to do with the gravitational gradient, I believe the dynamics problem scales with the black hole.

Or to put it another way, the stretching problem doesn't scale because we are only increasing the size of the black hole and not your ship.

[Neri]

As I pointed out earlier, time is just an idea that helps us make sense of our experience of things that lie outside of us. As such, it can only have utility if it is coherent in the human mind.

According to the Big Bang Theory, the whole of existence arose out of nothing and nowhere and for no reason at all.

It arose out of nothing, because there was nothing before it from which it could arise.

It arose out of nowhere, because it is said to have arisen out of a spatial point, and such a thing cannot locate itself relative to any other thing when it exists by itself.

It happened for no reason at all, because there was nothing before it to serve as a cause.

Without a pre-existing cause, one is forced to admit that no law of nature was responsible for, nor could possibly explain, why everything rather than nothing is now real.

Indeed, we are told there was no time before the Big Bang and that this event, as it were, “started the clock running.”

Yet, according to general relativity (upon which the Big Bang Theory depends) time, as we understand it, never happened at the Big Bang. In fact, nothing could have happened at all.

Indeed, a geometric entity of three, four or even a hundred dimensions cannot arise, evolve or change without time as commonly understood.

It is said that what “happened” at the Big Bang” was the “beginning” of four-dimensional space, wherein “time” is reduced to an anisotropic space coordinate (McTaggart B-Series).

Accordingly, we cannot really speak of such things as a “beginning” or “end” or “event”. Nor can such a purely spatial entity expand or change in any way.

We are told that, for no reason at all, “space/time” “arose” at the instant of the Big Bang. When we say “instant,” we are talking about a geometric point—something said to exist even though it has a volume of naught.

This “instant” cannot be called “something” on the basis that it has a perfect location; for with nothing else existing, it cannot be located relative to another thing.

Surely, if a thing has no expanse at all, it can only be called “absolutely nothing.” Usually, a singularity is someone’s mathematical error. In this case, it is elevated to the status of the very seed of all of reality.

None of this is coherent according to the processes of human understanding, for it strips the idea of time of all sense and meaning.

More than even this, it tells us that the beginning of the universe happened by employing a mathematics that proscribes happenings of any kind.

[DragonFly]

Yet the Universe was able to come forth, and we observe a zero-sum balance.

[Neri]

DF,

What you say seems true, but only of the known universe. What we know of may not be the sum of all physical reality [“physical” perhaps being redundant].

In other words, what we call the “universe” may be only one of a great number of such things that are beyond our ability to observe. Each may be in different stages of expansion or contraction with causal powers over the known universe according to laws of nature unknown to us or even beyond our understanding.

Of course, this is only speculation, yet it would eliminate the incoherence of an uncaused singularity and thus would be abductively superior to viewing the known universe as the whole of reality.

[dandelion]

I dont claim to be in anyway correct. Just wanted thoughts and corrections on my idea.

So if we assume the universe started with the big bang,...

Just thought to mention this thread, stuck in the religion area-
http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=27871
For example this, https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ig-bounce/

[bangstrom]

Without a pre-existing cause, one is forced to admit that no law of nature was responsible for, nor could possibly explain, why everything rather than nothing is now real.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”- Stephen Hawking

In the zero-energy hypothesis the net energy of the universe is zero. We have energy in the form of matter and what we customarily think of as energy. These two forms of energy constitute what is called “positive energy” and positive energy is balanced by an equal amount of “negative energy.” Negative energy is what we call gravity. Gravity is considered negative energy because it takes energy to remove a massive body from a gravitational field.

A quantum fluctuation arising from the vacuum could produce equal amounts of positive energy (matter and energy) and negative energy (gravity) with no violation to the conservation of energy so it takes zero energy to create a universe. Gravity is considered an energy debit since it is the energy deficit left by the formation of positive matter/energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

[DragonFly]

Without a pre-existing cause, one is forced to admit that no law of nature was responsible for, nor could possibly explain, why everything rather than nothing is now real.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”- Stephen Hawking

So, then, a universe or multiverse can be, due to the eternal capability described.

A kind of sub-time of fluctuation noise ensues until something can persist and cause more events to go on, this making for real time.

[hyksos]

Without a pre-existing cause, one is forced to admit that no law of nature was responsible for, nor could possibly explain, why everything rather than nothing is now real.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”- Stephen Hawking

In the zero-energy hypothesis the net energy of the universe is zero. We have energy in the form of matter and what we customarily think of as energy. These two forms of energy constitute what is called “positive energy” and positive energy is balanced by an equal amount of “negative energy.” Negative energy is what we call gravity. Gravity is considered negative energy because it takes energy to remove a massive body from a gravitational field.

A quantum fluctuation arising from the vacuum could produce equal amounts of positive energy (matter and energy) and negative energy (gravity) with no violation to the conservation of energy so it takes zero energy to create a universe. Gravity is considered an energy debit since it is the energy deficit left by the formation of positive matter/energy.

[Brent696]

""""""""So if we assume the universe started with the big bang, all matter in a single point, and time did not exist until this single point "banged" and expansion began. Would time be the distance of that expansion and only an expression of the transfer of energy from singularity to the edges of the universe?"""""

Most probably surmise that we are static, standing still, and time is moving past us, the universe is moving, expanding, all while we are standing still as time moves around us. This means "time" is a thing out there, something that is happening out there whether I am aware of it or not.

Such a concept is finite, but creates a conundrum, time must begin from timelessness, just as matter must have exploded from a singularity, which could have only existed nowhere as space itself was irrelevant. Before time and space, when and where would everything come from, so it all comes from nothing.

Now try this, there is an obstacle course, set and static, stretching across the space of a gymnasium. You enter at one door and work your way through until you come to the other side of the course. The space has stood still and you have moved through it.

Now think of time as that same kind of map, static, and you are moving though it and as you do you are experiencing time like you experienced space moving across the gym.

So the universe would have no beginning and no end, it is all consciousness. It might help to think of the chicken and the egg and which came first. Neither, the whole ideal was a chicken within and egg and this egg within a chicken that is within another egg within another chicken, it could even be the same chicken and the same egg, but creation, rather than beginning in the past, is rather the spreading out of this ideal, the future being pulled forward while the past is being pulled backwards.

Now that metaphor still denotes time in a sense but shows creation from a mid point. So boom, in one second lets say all the universe pops into existence, spatially AND with its complete timeline. And now it is our consciousness, whose very existence requires a context of time and space as a point of locality (I am) moves along, that is experiencing time just as it does space.

Hence this is why quantum physics does a back flip trying to discern reality at such a level because reality starts to lose its reality. (You guys can quote me on that)

So from a different perspective, where all of the universe is happening at once, the speed of light is a division as it Restricts all time from happening at once, rather than an addition as if everything is moving outward fr a singularity and that is as fast as something (photon) can move. A limit on a car is how fast it is supposed to drive, but the true limit is where it reaches its point of equalization and all the horse power is being used.

With light think of it as having an infinite potential where time would stop, and it is in the slowing down, the limiting of its speed that makes the universe appear to be happening.

And no, I don't know what theory out there might come close to this, not block, it is just the way I have come to think of it from meditating and the nature of a true infinity.

>>>>>>>And then if that is the case, to travel into the future you would only need to move faster than the rate of this expansion?<<<<<<<<

Comas are also a good way to time travel for the mind anyway. Suspended animation for the body, as long as your mind is comatose and it is not a living nightmare of consciousness. Just options.

[DragonFly]

Whatever and however and whenever the the source of the universe, it's not yet revealing something so apparently simple as whether the mode of time is presentism, eternalize, or a growing block mixture.

Smolin likes time as fundamental; Rovilli likes time as emergent. I like time as ongoing, even if some rather useless durations are/were quantum noise alone.

There was no singularity, though, due to the Planck size limit, and it was from this limit and other constants that the speed limit of light was derived. You can look it up. It's interesting.

I don't like the Block idea, for then all that goes on to make the next instant then seems a redundant waste, since the next instant already exists.

'Nothing' cannot even be meant.

An infinite regress of eggs and chickens or stuff from ever tinier stuff doesn't work; the effect would take forever.

It's not all Consciousness because consciousness is structured from neural activity, plus this complexity came way later, as do all complexities and many multi-composites.

Nobody Nowhere thinks Everything happened all at once, with the broadcast of it taking time.

The writer of a book, 'Everything Forever', Given Giorbran, thinks that Omega, the End of the Universe, pulls the universe forward, while Alpha, the Beginning, pushes it forward.

The Big Bang has the universe unwinding like a spring.

Obvious Leo thought that we spatialize space, it not really being there.

So and so thought… whatever.

Ride on a beam of light and all time stops and all of space shrink to a point.

I am still collecting clues. The universe isn't yet revealing all.

P.S. 'Infinity' can never complete, and so it can't have being.

An eternal something? Spontaneous creation? No one knows.

[Brent696]

Dragonfly

Block seems to sync well with me but not growing block. I think my problem is is that I think in pictures, as a theorist, I see this stuff but when I look at the theories and they start with their graphs and equations I look at those like a foreign language and wonder "how can you actually KNOW something that you cannot perceive in a 3d sense in your mind".

It took me years before I realized I thought differently, but

"""""It's not all Consciousness because consciousness is structured from neural activity, plus this complexity came way later, as do all complexities and many multi-composites.""""

You make many suppositions that seem no where near to have been proven. You seem to be firmly entrenched in evolution and a mere material creation, but this universe without a doubt is manifest on two distinct levels,

We have the phenomenal world of Matter, particles, etc, but math describes an invisible layer to this universe, a layer like a kaleidoscope of forces, like being in a pool and seeing the patterns cast about in 3 dimensions that are produced by the sun shining through the waves on top, so there is an invisible grid work that math describes and matter obeys.

So the question is can matter (Neurons) produce an instrument that can see beyond its own senses, or does consciousness belong to this invisible realm and thus is capable of exploring its own nature. Asking neurons to produce consciousness then seems like asking the eye to see sound or the ear to hear light.

I find this misdirection when most speak about gravity, because in every other context matter, mindless in itself, follows the laws and patterns of the invisible realm, but then Gravity seems to be spoken of as matter in mass is actually creating a law. So in thinking about a gravity well, does matter collect and then its mass produces the invisible well, OR is there a well into which matter falls and is collected.

So I wonder if we are thinking about gravity in the wrong direction also.

[DragonFly]

We have the phenomenal world of Matter, particles, etc, but math describes an invisible layer to this universe, a layer like a kaleidoscope of forces, like being in a pool and seeing the patterns cast about in 3 dimensions that are produced by the sun shining through the waves on top, so there is an invisible grid work that math describes and matter obeys.

Or is math simple very amenable to the description of nature's regularities?

So the question is can matter (Neurons) produce an instrument that can see beyond its own senses, or does consciousness belong to this invisible realm and thus is capable of exploring its own nature. Asking neurons to produce consciousness then seems like asking the eye to see sound or the ear to hear light.

Yes, for the neural information correlates to what then gets represented in consciousness, in unity; however, there is no literal seeing what is beyond the senses, but there is the view of the model of reality as what the neurons came up with. Billions upon billions of years passed before there were any creatures, much less conscious one.

If Earth survives, look for even higher modes of consciousness in the future; that's where higher beings will be found, not backward toward the past and the simpler.

I find this misdirection when most speak about gravity, because in every other context matter, mindless in itself, follows the laws and patterns of the invisible realm, but then Gravity seems to be spoken of as matter in mass is actually creating a law. So in thinking about a gravity well, does matter collect and then its mass produces the invisible well, OR is there a well into which matter falls and is collected.

Both ways, for there is a dynamic interplay: Einstein's gravitational field tells matter how to move; yet, matter tells space (the gravitational field) how to curve. The yin is in the yang and the yang is in the yin.

[Brent696]

Dragonfly,

>>>Or is math simple very amenable to the description of nature's regularities?<<<<<<

IF there were no underlying reality, an invisible world of patterns that math is merely describing, then there would be no relativity. A train traveling at half the speed of light, with a headlight on the front, would produce light from the headlight traveling at light speed plus the speed of the train. The protons cannot do this because they have to obey an invisible limit.

>>>>>>>Both ways, for there is a dynamic interplay: Einstein's gravitational field tells matter how to move; yet, matter tells space (the gravitational field) how to curve. The yin is in the yang and the yang is in the yin.<<<<<<<<<

I can see yin and yang in Newtonian as inertia and gravity work together to create an orbit. But if there is a gravity for the earth which has attracted the matter of this planet, you can't shift then to the suns well as regards our orbit. The gravity well of the sun and that of the Earth are not yin and yang, if the Earth disappeared the sun would remain, if the sun's well disappeared, the earth would simply become another deep space asteroid. The dependency is one way.

[BadgerJelly]

How about using QUOTATIONS? Like ...

This

[DragonFly]

“Inertia and gravity are phenomena identical in nature.” - Albert Einstein

[Brent696]

Dragonfly,

It is unbecoming to play dumb, since I referenced "orbits" so then we have the gravity well along with the inertia of a body in motion to remain in motion which is the forward trajectory of the object, these two finding balance thus producing an orbit.

The inertia Einstein is referencing is how gravity mimics a continual falling, (elevator experiment).

So back to consciousness as opposed to neuron activity, inertia, even as you liken gravity to it, it a force line to which matter is obedient. An object remaining in motion is not due to its mass, the object itself would not create this inertia to which it must follow, so likewise the gravity well could proceed the matter which fills it and not at all be a product of the mass.

Badger, if you are speaking to me about using "" instead of ><, that would then be confusing if I also added a quote to my answer. Years have left me with a bad habit I suppose from other forums. I will work on figuring out the way dragonfly has used them.

[DragonFly]

Now Here — No Where

"Show me Eternity!"

Pages: http://s664.photobucket.com/user/austintorn/media/NHNWNew%20jpg%20frame%20875%20p9%20jpgs%20791/NHNWNew%20jpg%20frame%208.75%20p9%202.jpeg_zpsoor2bavw.jpg.html?sort=9&o=1

Video: https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=tAz6balOuSk

[TheVat]

Dragonfly,

It is unbecoming to play dumb, since I referenced "orbits" so then we have the gravity well along with the inertia of a body in motion to remain in motion which is the forward trajectory of the object, these two finding balance thus producing an orbit.

The inertia Einstein is referencing is how gravity mimics a continual falling, (elevator experiment).

...

Not falling. Einstein showed the equivalence of gravity and continual acceleration.

The rider in the elevator cannot distinguish gravity and acceleration.

It may be unbecoming to play dumb, but it is more unbecoming to lecture others on a topic on which one is uninformed.

[Brent696]

>>>>>>Not falling. Einstein showed the equivalence of gravity and continual acceleration.

The rider in the elevator cannot distinguish gravity and acceleration.

It may be unbecoming to play dumb, but it is more unbecoming to lecture others on a topic on which one is uninformed.<<<<<<<<

Thank you for pointing out the "RIDER" as you are addressing merely the subjective experience of Gravity, for example, our experience of gravity while STANDING on the Earth is equivalent to our experience if we were in a spaceship in constant acceleration.

""""""(Wiki) (Equivalency Principle) In the theory of general relativity, the equivalence principle is any of several related concepts dealing with the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and to Albert Einstein's observation that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.""""""

""""""That is, being on the surface of the Earth is equivalent to being inside a spaceship (far from any sources of gravity) that is being accelerated by its engines. The direction or vector of acceleration equivalence on the surface of the earth is "up" or directly opposite the center of the planet while the vector of acceleration in a spaceship is directly opposite from the mass ejected by its thrusters. From this principle, Einstein deduced that free-fall is inertial motion. Objects in free-fall do not experience being accelerated downward (e.g. toward the earth or other massive body) but rather weightlessness and no acceleration.<<<<<<<

But once again, as regards orbits, there is a balance between an object to continue in its forward motion, and the tendency to FALL into the gravity well, which is the Inertia of Falling, and is the equivalency principle to which Einstein was referring to in his quote "“Inertia and gravity are phenomena identical in nature.” - Albert Einstein" and NOT the experience of acceleration.

But perhaps I should address the true topic of your post, (Brent is lecturing others on topics of which he is uninformed), telling someone not to PLAY DUMB when they switch a context is not the same as trying to prove someone is dumb. So is Gravity Actually acceleration, is the Earth accelerating upwards towards us, or is the inertia of our falling, arrested by the presence of the Earth. But never mind, I was content to stick with "Time", but this thread is too far gone off topic.

[DragonFly]

Back on topic:

— Time’s Blast —

Time, e’er gray with age, hurls its changes then,
‘Gainst existence’s rock, time and time again,
The entropic seas denuding the sands,
Yet much is preserved, via nature’s wands.

Still, waves of those ancient swells of Old Time’s
Relentless tides sweep ever on, anon,
As Time, now gray and hoary with age,
Ever onward hurls forth the ashen change.

Reminiscences have greatly weathered
But some memories can never wither,
For there, in the woven mists of time,
Yesteryear yet appears, in its clime.

The charge is ever san, pale, and colorless,
That which drives the universe to its death,
That force born to summon decay, so endless,
‘Gainst Nature’s paradise every day.

Time and time again, Time feeds all upon
In its bloodless, white, and waxen way,
Yet our everlasting rose does not fade,
Its luster even brightening by the day.

Entropic seas e’er denude the mountains,
But our enduring flower never-endingly
Has cast Deathly Time aside, for now,
Ceaselessly somehow thriving on,

E’er unsuccumbing to the sickly, peakèd
State draining drawn the life away,
Gaining its seemingly perpetual permanence
From the undying love of life’s glorious dance,

As through that which ‘IS’ the imperishable,
Its flame of beauty e’er inextinguishable,
Forever celebrated as immutable,
Deathless, ne’er created, ungenerated.

[socrat44]

Without a pre-existing cause, one is forced to admit that no law of nature was responsible for, nor could possibly explain, why everything rather than nothing is now real.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and
will create itself from nothing.”
- Stephen Hawking

“Because there is a law such as Quantum - Gravity, (!)
the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”
- Stephen Hawking
=========

[CanMan]

Infinite_Observer: "So if we assume the universe started with the big bang, all matter in a single point, and time did not exist until this single point "banged" and expansion began."

But how could the "bang" have occurred in the absence of time? Can stuff actually happen or occur in a timeless state? Doesn't "occur" imply time? Without time, "before" states of existence do not exist.