Universe and Time

[Arminius]

@James S Saint

@Arminius

What caused the universe?
What caused the time?

The universe was never “caused”, as in coming from a prior nothingness. It was never “started”. The cause/reason of the universe is the logic of the situation (referred to as “God”).

I knew that you would answer this.

And what caused the time?

[James_S_Saint]

@Arminius

And what caused the time?

Time has the same “cause/reason”.
Time is merely the measure of relative changing. The physical universe IS the changing of which time is the relative measure. There can’t be one without the other.

[Arminius]

@James S Saint

@Arminius

And what caused the time?

Time has the same “cause/reason”.
Time is merely the measure of relative changing. The physical universe IS the changing of which time is the relative measure. There can’t be one without the other.

I guess you know which question will be the next one: What caused the affectance? According to RM:AO existence is that which has affect, so I could also ask: What caused the existence? And I guess that your answer will be: “The affectance (existence) was never »caused«; it was never »started«; the cause/reason of the affectance (existence) is the logic of the situation (referred to as »God«).”

[James_S_Saint]

@Arminius

I guess you know which question will be the next one: What caused the affectance? According to RM:AO existence is that which has affect, so I could also ask: What caused the existence? And I guess that your answer will be: “The affectance (existence) was never »caused«; it was never »started«; the cause/reason of the affectance (existence) is the logic of the situation (referred to as »God«).”

Yeah, you got it. Affectance is never caused, although there is a reason for it existing. Affectance is reality itself. There can be no reality without it. And it is mathematically impossible to have no reality.

[phyllo]

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.

[James_S_Saint]

@phyllo

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]

[Gadfly_of_Philosophy]

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?

[Arminius]

@James S Saint

This is that “Equation of Space” that provides a single field which explains all others in physics.

That equation is absolutely necessarily true, although I have not explained how to use it.

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

@James S Saint

@Arminius

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

In common English, the equation states that every point in space is defined by the sum of its potential-to-affect, “p”, and all changes to its potential-to-affect - the time derivatives.

In philosophical terms, it is merely stating that every point in existence is defined by the rate of change of its potential to alter the degree of existence (its ability to affect anything = its degree of existence).

The terms following the “p +” are the sum of all changes at all rates in p through time, expressed as the sum:
a0dp/dt +
a1d²p/dt² +
a2*d³ p/dt³ + …

wherein the “a” values are scalars suited to each point.

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.

[James_S_Saint]

@Arminius

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.

[Arminius]

@James S Saint

@Arminius

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?

[Platospuppy1]

@Arminius

[size=150]Universe and Time.[/size]

One of the basic facts of our life is that the future looks different from the past. But under a cosmological point of view this asymmetry of time is perhaps only a local phenomenon.

The universe looks somehow not as it should. That sounds strange when one considers that cosmologists have little to compare with. How do we know how the universe should look like? Nevertheless, we have developed over time a strong sense of what is „natural“, and the surrounding universe does not meet this claim. Mind you, the standard cosmological model describes - more or less successfully - the consistence of the universe and how the universe develops. Approximately 14 billion years ago the universe was hotter and denser than the interior of a star. Since then the space has been expanding, cooling, and losing density. Although this model explains virtually any observation made so far, but a number of unusual properties, especially of the early universe, suggests to us that we do not yet fully understand the development of the universe.

Perhaps there is symmetry of time in our universe.

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.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

@Arminius

@James S Saint

What does “symmetry of time” mean?

“Symmetry of time” means that past and future are symmetric.

The rules of physics - the basic laws of physics - are time-symmetric. They apply to forward and backward running time equally. So the past and the future have to be the same.

We experience time as asymmetric. We say that In our universe the time of an ordered initial state to a disordered final state.

The time asymmetry violates the basic laws of physics. Perhaps the asymmetry of time is just a local problem.

Dont see what you mean.

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

[James_S_Saint]

@Arminius

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

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.

[Arminius]

@Platospuppy1

@Arminius

[size=150]Universe and Time.[/size]

One of the basic facts of our life is that the future looks different from the past. But under a cosmological point of view this asymmetry of time is perhaps only a local phenomenon.

The universe looks somehow not as it should. That sounds strange when one considers that cosmologists have little to compare with. How do we know how the universe should look like? Nevertheless, we have developed over time a strong sense of what is „natural“, and the surrounding universe does not meet this claim. Mind you, the standard cosmological model describes - more or less successfully - the consistence of the universe and how the universe develops. Approximately 14 billion years ago the universe was hotter and denser than the interior of a star. Since then the space has been expanding, cooling, and losing density. Although this model explains virtually any observation made so far, but a number of unusual properties, especially of the early universe, suggests to us that we do not yet fully understand the development of the universe.

Perhaps there is symmetry of time in our universe.

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.

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.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEr-t17m2Fo[/youtube]
Again:
Get a new pair of glasses.

[Arminius]

@GreatandWiseTrixie

@Arminius

@James S Saint

What does “symmetry of time” mean?

“Symmetry of time” means that past and future are symmetric.

The rules of physics - the basic laws of physics - are time-symmetric. They apply to forward and backward running time equally. So the past and the future have to be the same.

We experience time as asymmetric. We say that In our universe the time of an ordered initial state to a disordered final state.

The time asymmetry violates the basic laws of physics. Perhaps the asymmetry of time is just a local problem.

Dont see what you mean.

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

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.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

@Arminius

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.

[Arminius]

@GreatandWiseTrixie

@Arminius

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.

[Platospuppy1]

@Arminius

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.

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.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEr-t17m2Fo[/youtube]
Again:
Get a new pair of glasses.

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?

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

3. “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.

[Arminius]

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.

[James_S_Saint]

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.