# Universe and Time

James,

I think that your affectance concept is quite clever. Too bad that you have not been able to turn it into something practical.

I agree with a lot of what you have said about God.

I probably have not given you enough credit over the years. That’s my bad.

Just thought it needed saying.

Catch you on the flip side.

Well, that’s very kind of you to say.
Thank you.

[size=85]… let’s see now … at a rate of one every five years …[/size]

Universe and time…what do we know of each? Could we say one gives reality to the other? Could the universe exist without time? Could time exist with the Universe?

More importantly, these series of posts are in the science, technology, and math category. What is the scientific, technical, and mathematical analysis of the bare survival and possible revival of this message board? Do we understand what made this message board, once, a great thing? Like all great empires, a thing has a growth and decline, a season, a rhythm and a flow…a natural cycle. May we say it’s spring and will you allow me to say this board is meant for great things once more?

Would you mind telling me a bit about the equation itself (for example about the term to the right of the “p +”)?

I thought so. But if all terms following the “p +” (thus the “pta +”) are “the sum of all changes at all rates in p through time”, then they have to include the entire time of the universe, thus also the future of the universe.

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.

How did you figure out the use of the equation? Did you use the equation? And if you did: How did you do it?

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.

Dont see what you mean.

Physics is not time symettric. If you reverse time, an apple is repelled by gravity.

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.

Again:
Get a new pair of glasses.

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.

This is all hyperbole by the way.

Yes. But this is (or should be?) a philosophy forum. So we should try to ask and answer all questions in order to finally get the truth.

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?

1. “There definitely was a Big Bang” Only religious persons would believe such nonsense. “let there be light!”

2. “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.

Probably it was meant as a joke.

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.

And of suns!

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“.

Hmmm…

Not so sure myself.

There are two apparent options;

1. forming from a cloud, as suggested.
2. 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.

But black holes could not be known at that said time, thus: were not known at that said time.

Yes. Probably Kant would not have accepted it as we do not accept it. However: No human of the 1750’s was talking about a “big bang” ( ).

Kant said, for example, said one should overcome dogmatism by using the own intellect.

The hypothesis of the “big bang” has much more to do with dogmatism than with science.