# Big Bang

The problem with that idea and what could lead to a hell state for an explorer, is that if you were traveling at an infinite speed, you wouldn’t get anywhere, you would be indefinitlley traveling so long as the universe itself was infinite, for then you would be traveling such that you passed all points instantly but there would be an infinite number of points. Otherwise if the universe was finite, you would simply stop at the end of the universe, but the problem with that is would that stop be so sudden that you were crushed?

And you can’t actually cut all of something away instantly, I imagine that being attempted and all a person ends up doing is just slamming the knife down next to the thing, thus that thing was cut away, from something else, in its entirety. But you can’t say cut something without cutting it away from a part of itself…

The problem with going back in time is that if such was actually done then no matter what you would have altered the future, simple precence alone Butterfly effects to the future, as such even if what you changed didn’t stop you from thinking you should go back in time, it would still change you: You go back in time as a result your a little different then in actuallity when you went back in time you were different and then that difference causes another difference to your future self that then causes another difference to your future self when it goes back in time and so on and so forth, such that ultimatley the simple act of going bak in time would cause an instant loop of alteration in the subject that would result in an infinite rate of alteration, such as to probably nullify it from being able to effect anything…Although it may be possible that eventually you will change to a degree that prevents you from going back in time, but if that happened you would have then effectively never gone back in time and thus everything would be the same…

I would think though with regards to the BB that it is possible that it will seem finite and we might find an end but that doesn’t actually mean that it is finite, because in finding that it was we would be using measurements from within the system that is the universe, and thus it would be like saying the size of an apple is 50/50ths of that apple which ammounts to just saying it is 1 apple, and doesn’t really suggest size…

No.
First, Einstein merely stated in all of his works, “If what you have told me is true, THEN this… must also be true.”
Einstein never completely believed in relativity, despite all those out-of-context quotes from him.

But regardless of that, what he said was that to every observer light will always be measured as “c”, regardless of how they are moving.

By definition such travelers would go back at a constant rate by their own measure. But it is a little interesting to speculate whether we on Earth would be able to somehow “see” them taking only 14 billion years. I would think that it necessarily would for us.

But that still leaves your more significant point an interesting one. If one were to start time running backwards, would it actually ever reach the BB moment?

Frankly, I’m not convinced that the BB ever took place at all. Quite a few have shown contrary evidence displaying that astronomical measures of that time would have merely made it seem like the universe is expanding from a central location when in fact, it wasn’t expanding at all.

Some physicists believe in a cyclic Big Bang then Big Crunch.

Nobody really knows. Various people offer hypotheses, and some try to present them as authoritative fact, but nobody knows for sure. Note that big bang theory doesn’t actually go back as far as a singularity, that’s hypothetical and presented as fact too.

Some people say nothing existed before the big bang, and try to say that this is big bang theory, see for example this, but it isn’t. Compare and contrast with wikipedia which says According to the Big Bang model, the universe was originally in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly. That’s better, but there’s a bit of an issue with “hot”. Heat is an emergent property of motion, so if you have a very dense universe where nothing is moving, there isn’t any heat. There isn’t any time either. Hence I’d say it’s worth looking at the frozen star black hole interpretation, or the gravastar. Note the bit that says This region is called a “gravitational vacuum”, because it is a void in the fabric of space and time. Think of the whole universe being like this before the big bang. And before you ask, as to how or why the big bang happened, search me. But there is a parallel between winding the evolution of the universe back and falling into a black hole. At the event horizon the gravitational time dilation goes infinite and the coordinate speed of light is zero, so clocks don’t tick, so there is no time any more. Some people might scoff at that and talk about proper time, but when clocks don’t tick there just isn’t any.

I read in A Brief History of Time that every laws of physic breaks down (so is history) at the big bang singularity. So, it doesn’t matter what existed before that anymore.

Well then, if what Einstein told me is true, then my quote must be true.

Relative to whom? Relative to the object moving at c, they will be stationary. They are the reference frame. Doesn’t mean they can’t be moving relative to someone else.

We would have to be ‘observing’ them in the past. It’s not like watching them through a telescope traveling through space.

That’s interesting. How do they figure?

I think that is what was propose, but I don’t know that by anymeans that such can be any more than a theory as it would be hard to actually test that such would occur in any empiricle way.

I agree. But Cosmology can’t be observed in empirical means. They are just speculations based on some theories.

Actually if you were traveling at the speed of light everything you observed would seem to be moving in the opposite direction at the speed of light, rather than seeming stationary. But James is right regarding the theory, original einstein had the thought experiment where he considered traveling next to a stream of light/photon, and imagened that if he spead up to its speed it would appear to be stationary. But empiriccal data ended up suggesting otherwise: They did laser tests I believe what they did was they had the whole system in movement in the direction of light emission and where it would have been thought that this would result in the light reaching the sensor at a later time, it didn’t the light always reached the sensor at the same time…I’m not sure that is exactly how they measured it but I heard it ws measured and the evidence showed this, so I would assume the test was something like that…If not then maybe they were wrong…IDK

Any measurement of the entirty of the universe cannot be relaivated to anything outside of the universe as the universe contains all things, so the All/universe, can’t be measured as a measurement is a relivation to another thing outside of that thing itself. IN order to attempt any measurement would require measureing by thing inside the universe and thus any result would be the same as saying an apple is 50/50ths of itself, in other words 1. As such the actual size is indeterminate, though one could suppose that the zise is greater than 0 as we are in it…That would be my theory anyways…i think James disagrees with this though.

I would go farther and say everything is a speculation. As inorder to arrive at the idea that empirical data works and was valuable, we speculated. It would be a circumlocution type idea to suggest that empiricle data is proved as valueable by empiricle data itself. While we can say it seems to work, there is no guruntee that it always will.

Stories do change every decade or so and Farsight has a much greater and impressive log of the documented stories (which also change now and then), but from what I have gathered it all started when Einstein was a young professor teaching physics. He taught of how radio waves travel through the aether. If you raise the electric potential on an antenna, it takes time for that change to propagate through space. But the wave doesn’t care from where it came. It travels at a speed determined by the space itself, not the source. Thus a radio wave carrying the changes created by any antenna will travel at the same speed through space regardless of how fast the antenna might have been moving.

Since Einstein believed that light was merely another type of wave, the same must be true of light. His example was that if a man were on a train and shot an arrow, a man at the station would see the arrow traveling at the speed of the train plus the speed of an arrow leaving the man. But with light it wouldn’t be so. If that same man shined a “torch” ahead of him, the man at the station would see the light traveling at the speed of light regardless of the speed of the train.

But then things got complicated when Michelson Morley attempted to prove the existence of aether. Even though their experiment was horribly flawed, they assumed that because they didn’t prove aether, they must have disproved aether. For more interesting reasons, it became excessively important that people not believe in aether. But then if there is no aether, would Einstein’s (and just about everyone at the time) theory of wave speed be right?

As it turned out when they analyzed physics with the Galilean relativity postulate (it doesn’t matter who is moving, the laws have to be the same for all), if they assumed that wave speed was constant but time itself changed for the moving observer, then everything would work out… (almost). If the time (the speed of a clock) held by the man on the train slowed, then the man would perceive (if he could) that the light was traveling away from him at the speed of waves and also the man at the station would see the light traveling at the speed of waves. As it turned out with experiments, sure enough clocks really do slow down when they are moving faster relative to a clock that isn’t. But of course, that got into “who is really moving and who isn’t”. About that time, things got all too complicated for them to keep it all actually straight but none the less, we ended up with Special Relativity due to what must be true if their prior assumptions from observations were true.

So the current popular theory is that if a man were traveling near the speed of light, his clock would be turning so slow, that when he measured the light that seemed to other to be moving near the same speed as he, he would still measure the light to be traveling from him at the same speed it always travels.

But as I have substantial pointed out (FINALLY after over 800 posts) in the Stopped Clock Paradox - page 12, their reasoning is still seriously flawed and in fact, impossible.

And there is your flawed speculation.

I don’t see how we had to speculate that it would work before we could do it. and then proving empirical data by using empirical data itself doesn’t seem to logical. And as long as that is not logical then that suggests that the idea that empirical data is valuable is merely a speculation. that isn’t to say it doesn’t work though, as it does seem to with regards to at least a good many things.

That got me thinking, how could we know that in realty the clock didn’t really slow because the movement just caused a sort of resistance to its normal movement, its gears and all. In other words time didn’t slow down, but maybe inertia increased or something?

That’s pretty much how it works.
Affectance necessarily has a reluctance to change and a maximum rate of that change.
Thus as anything approaches the maximum, it cannot internally change fast enough to compensate for its overall movement into a new space and also relative to its other components. Thus it slows relative to its own other components, hence the clock turns slower (a motion relative to itself).

But that is only half the story.

And what does it mean if some people are really good at speculating with the same knowledge base? Can we infer from that that (scientific) empiricism is not the only way to knowledge? Corporations aim money at some of these people. Are they foolish?

If a law can break down in certain conditions, is it a law? Maybe it is a habit. Most scientists assume that laws are permanent facets of the universe, but perhaps this in not the case - one could bring in Hume’s critique of induction here.

Rupert Sheldrake presents the position that laws and constants change and can change.

sheldrake.org/experiments/constants/

Speculation I would say is good but assuming you can’t be wrong is bad, most likely.

I would say any path can lead to the point. (perhaps the leading is endless…though I don’t know i would think that) Some paths may take longer, perhaps especially those that spend more time on details, but then a wide use of multiple paths can often lead one farther faster, I would think.

You mean those who accept things as “proven” or in other words: not possibly wrong? I don’t know that it would be as fair to call them foolish as much as manipulated, if corporations are using them.

Actually, what would happen is length contraction. The entire universe would contract infinitely such that whatever point the traveller started from would coincide with his destination point, essentially making his trip instantaneous. His clock would slow down to a halt but the trip would have 0 distance and take 0 time anyway. This is what I mean when I say that relative to the traveller, he does not experience the cosmic speed limit of c; his speed can become ‘infinite’.

Wow, huge in-between set of possibilities left out.

Sounds like Feyarabend in Against Method.

I don’t know where the concept of ‘infallible’ entered my post. I didn’t intend it, nor can I see it there. I wasn’t suggesting anyone speculates without error. I merely meant that some speculate better than others, some of these well above chance.