No, no. I didn’t mean “changes through time” as “throughout history and future”, but rather all time-rates-of-changing; velocity, acceleration, acceleration of the acceleration, acceleration of the acceleration of the acceleration…
I could have made the equation in the form of the sum of all changes from [size=150]-∞ [/size]time to [size=150]+∞ [/size]time in order to reflect literally all time past through future, but what would be the point.
The more interesting issue is how to use the equation … wasn’t so easy to figure out.
Time is not symmetrical. Only geometric figures can be symmetrical. Time is an independent measurement which doesn’t change with speed or acceleration. You can’t fiddle with time as if it were some kind of cosmic putty. You are getting carried away with your semantic and philosophical imagination. The universe looks exactly how it should. Get a new pair of glasses.
That is quite a long story, best suited for the other thread because it is about how to emulate space with a tool, not about space itself. So let me get to that over there.
No. You should get a new pair of glasses. Try to read the text one more time. I said: “Perhaps there is symmetry of time in our universe”. Perhaps … It was not my statement but my suggestion, because I wanted to suggest a discussion. I was referring to the text of the physicist Sean M. Carroll: The Origin of the Universe and the Arrow of Time.
Yes, for example, but do you think that it is possible? Do you think or believe that it is possible to have a reversed time in this or another universe? That is the question.
We are agents of time. Our consciousness, may be propelling time forward.
Our memories, act as anchors. Making the past stationary, anchored.
If we die, time will travel at an infinite rate until the next consciousness is online.
If we get enough telepathic powers, if we can predict the future so well and integrate future sight into our consciousness, and remove all memory modules…it is perhaps possible that we can reverse the flow of time itself.
The guy in the video hasn’t got a clue how the universe works. He is just using all the standard models and making stuff up as he goes.
1.He says - “Time has a direction.” Yeah? Which direction buddy?
“There definitely was a Big Bang” Only religious persons would believe such nonsense. “let there be light!”
“Entropy is going up”. Not in my universe. My universe creates and destroys matter in an on going basis. Its those jets which project out at a 90 degree angle from all galaxies. When they are over-loaded, they are ready to seed another galaxy at a distance of 300 million light years both north or south of the galaxy’s spin orientation. Go check the evidence for yourself, its all there for everybody to see. Aetheric pressure is maintained by these jets which results in what we call gravity. See my post on ‘How the Universe Works’ for more information.
If one says “there definitely was a big bang”, then this one should not be taken as seriously as that one who says “the Earth orbits the Sun”. But the reason I was referring to Sean M. Carroll’s theory was merely the aspect of the time, namely the problem of the arrow of time, in order to suggest a discussion. This forum is (or should be?) a philosophy forum. So we should try to ask and answer all questions in order to finally get the truth.
What we know as “time”, the measure of change, can never actually “go backwards” because a change is a change. But beyond that, even if all changes were perfectly reversed in their direction, the universe would still not actually be able to run backwards. The closest thing to reversing time is to merely place macro objects back as they were at a prior date, perhaps rebuild a small town exactly as it was 100 years ago.
… and there was no BB from a singularity. That thought seems more dumb to me every time I hear it.
There is probably a competition for a prize of the best science joke.
But if there is such a massive joke in physics, then I don’t want to hear anything about the other science disciplines. They themselves are probably jokes.
Immanuel Kant was sure that (1) the sun emerged from a cosmic cloud, that (2) a dust disk with floating particles was formed by the centrifugal force of the still rapidly rotating sun, and that (3) the planets were „glued“ in this dust disk with floating particles. According to Kant suns and solar systems originate in a rotating cloud of gas that has become so much dense that it collapses, and planets originate as „collections of sun dust parts“.
stemming from an explosion, perhaps black holes colliding.
There must be a continuous source for such events, but either of those could be eternally occurring and perhaps both are eternally occurring. But at least he didn’t proclaim that the entire universe arose from a Big Bang.
It is not inconceivable to me that what they are now calling “dark-matter/energy” or what I call “a relatively high affectance density region of space” or merely “thick space” can gradually become so dense as to begin spontaneously forming mass particles. Once that process begins, much larger mass objects would begin to grow and coalesce. Eventually that object could grow into a neutron star or burning star with planets, or perhaps a black hole - “coalescing from a cosmic cloud”.
But with black holes colliding, the universe would never be without mass objects anyway. The process of mass coalescing and then colliding into explosions would have to be occurring eternally regardless of anything else going on (even if there were no black holes).
).