A Time Theory Extended

Singularitarian · 6th September 2009, 04:08 PM

The Laws are Incomprehensible, We are just no Einstein's!

''The most incomprehensible thing is that the universe is comprehensible,'' Albert Einstein

According to Quantum Physics, because there was no observer around at Big Bang, all possible start-up positions had to arise side-by-side, because no resolution was ever made to distinguish one from another. Now, physics can be a bit tedious at times. To get around our misunderstandings we can apply some rather ridiculas examples to explain how we are supposed to envision situations.
To explain this 'superpositioning' in the very beginning, I’m going to use a classic analogy - one you may have heard of, or seen in cartoons; it is the 100 monkeys all typing away randomly on type writers... statistics says, that if you give these hypothetical monkeys long enough, they will eventually write a famous piece of work, like Shakespeare's, 'A Midsummer Nights Dream...'
Now, you can imagine these monkeys being the equivalent of the universe 15 billion years ago - bare with me on this, as bizarre as it might sound - imagine that these random pushing’s of buttons resembled the universe at time zero, a attentively flicking through all possible start up positions.
You can think about the statistics with the monkeys for a second. The chances they would create a 'Shakespearean' play runs into billions upon billions upon billions - almost unthinkable numbers - granted, that the monkeys would eventually do so, in the matter of 10 years, to 10 billion years. The product of this play, is equivalent to the product of everything visible today. Whether one considers the start up condition chosen by the universe as nothing but a fluke, or some divine purpose or otherwise, it is truly remarkable.
This superpositioning at the beginning means that every outcome lay as a potential, totally superimposed upon each other, like layers on a cake - an infinite amount of them.

Gods Resevior

And so all this potential i speak of was resident somehow before the big bang came into existence. We cannot be meaning however that there is some time associated to the potential that existed, because time itself had not even begun as remained a dorment mesh of virtual reality itself. The appearance of matter and energy in the universe implied to the simultaneous existence of the universe.
What caused the existence to appear would then seem to be some statistical change in this field which describes the entire state vector possibilities of the universe. What triggered such an audacious act? Fluke again perhaps?

This potnetial sea still exists with us today, hidden within the universe existing in an ethereal virtual state. This density of energy covers every corner of the universe, and is called the zero-point field. Somehow this field, having all the properties necessery to create reality as we know it today, give birth to every peice of matter in the universe. In fact, every entity or notion or concept ultimately arises from this potential sea. The BEST way to imagine this potentia before any resolution in the sudden appearance of time and
space is to understand that the potential ingredients did not scope over any real dimesions, it did not take up any space or time to have this potential stuff, not did it exist in a void or any vacuum. It's completely ellusive nature before the appearance of big bang makes it one of the most difficult concepts to believe. How can something that doesn't really exist, still give rise to something which does?
In many ways, for any believers in some intelligent Grand Creation, then the being responsible used this potential in one of the most remarkable ways. The being must have decided to initiate this universe over all the other possible-known universes because this universe was just consistent to make life. Even Hawking not too long ago admitted that we might need to start accepting that an Anthropic Principle model of quantum mechanics is inescapable.

The conclusions are bizarre. We can have a potential sea of everything needed to create the universe, but it never really existed - it's so imaginary on every level that nothingness pervaded the void, and then it wasn't so suddenly and spontaneously, so it might it be that something with a little more substance could have existed before the big bang? I seriously doubt that the current model of what existed before the big bang (which really accounts to nothing) seems to be wrong in our understandings through the logic we entertain the
theory with, because obviously this ''nothingness'' was in fact the ''everything-ness'' that was required to set to the initial laws and expansion of the universe. Using this same logic, we begin to have some idea as to what might be required; a multidimensional infinite pool where our universe happens to be an emergent property of this everything-ness.

The Time Before Time

One major problem is our language; even though in the dictionary there are approximately 171,476 words in current use, and 47,156 obsolete words, and whilst they equally make a wide range of vocabulary, the essential descriptions we give the standard laws of the physical universe concerning big bang break down - as though being a conceptual error of understanding because of the words we use. A good example was given above explaining how the nothingness of the universe before big bang was practically the everything-ness that was required
to have the universe emerge as a vacuum. Yes, our language makes our descriptions hard to fathom, theoretically and conceptually. So where our language can degrade our chances of making sense of the deep metaphysical and philosophical roots of physics, we need to find new ways as to explain our models without any conceptual-breakdowns. It won't be easy, and it's task i decided to take on myself as to understand a better model for explaining existence in terms of a big bang.

Instead of saying that there is nothing before the beginning of time, it might be best that time has actually been around for an infinity. If we allow our universe which is a four-dimensional manifold to be an ''object'' that floats around in a multidimensional pool, then we have ourselves a theory where time has actually persisted forever, and that the emergence of our universe is of some ''shatter'' in the multidimensional pool, analogous to breaking on mirror into many different but smaller parts, and those parts which represent the four
dimensions that we personally observe and experience are but the larger shards of a much more complex and compactified structure in the emergent properties of the spacetime vacuum. In fact, this is what string theory models have been trying to do, by describing the universe in terms of superpositioned universes of a much larger spacetime hierarchy of dimensions, and by allowing the universe to have these extra dimensions, we may speculate that the universe is not simply floating around in nothing, but rather floating in a much more complicated
spacetime realm, one with possibly an infinite amount of dimensions - But M-Theories 11 dimensions would suffice obviously.

You can have the model two ways. Treat spacetime normally with four dimensions, but being an emergent object from a much more complicated realm of dimensions, or you can have the same amount of dimensions (so long as its not an infinity of them) which make the pool, and simply apply the normal interpretational model which string theory models give, such as these dimensions exist hidden from us in this universe because they where compactified by some catastrophic event. Hyperspace theory states exactly this... But, what is hyperspace theory?
Before the Big Bang, it states that our universe had ten dimensions, just like superstring theory predicts. Then, very suddenly, the universe 'cracked', and our universe was born. This cataclysmic event allowed our 4-dimensional space to expand, whilst our twin 6-dimensional universe contracted in a volatile manor, and shrank to infinitesimal size. In fact, we find that the Ekpyrotic Theory evidently goes hand-in-hand with this hypothesis. If hyperspace theory is correct, then it can explain that the current observable rapid expansion
of the universe was a result of the cataclysm - thus, the death of our universe, which will most possibly be caused by rapid expansion causing the 'Big Chill', may in fact be caused by the cracking of multi-dimensional spacetime.

Using the idea however that perhaps spacetime truely is four-dimensional which would be most rational since they are obviously there and contending that it's like a four dimensionsional object floating about in a multidimensional pool is quite a strange thing to imagine, if one can. If someone could observe the universe moving through this place, it would be remarkably wierd where the dimensions twist and curl and defy normal understandings. For instance, if i decided to take a strole in the fifth dimension according to string theory, i can find
myself moving forward just to end up where i began? Wierd or what? Whilst the fifth dimension is an electromagnetic dimension, the hypothetical sixth dimension can even be entire baby universes themselves, with their own reality of matter and gas! The laws would seem strange indeed and the universe would certainly not move through it in any linear sense. What is even more interesting, is that it would imply Einstein was wrong about the universe being a self-contained object as with such a model, you can now apply the universe relative to something else;
the mulidimensional pool in which the droplet of this universe was extracted.

I do not even want to attempt to think about a model other that incoporates time as existing like it does today without some primal beginning to it, even because the beginning of the universe is being more consistently proven with each passing observation of the cosmos. But i am heavily open to the idea that time could have existed before the initial beginning of this universe, just in a different form, in a much more complex form or forms since more than one time-dimension is very consistent with theory. Remember, the variation of the theory
i believe in does not encorporate any more than the four dimensions in this universe, but can suggest that it is a droplet from a much larger sea. An excellent discussion is present here in this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/7598996.stm where doctor cox explains some of the idea's following the exploration of a multidimensional bulk.

In the string theory brane model, this universe does interact with the other universes via gravitational forces, but since my theory neglects the use having these extra dimensions within this manifold, then it might invoke a whole new meaning, where our universe does not interact with any physical meaning with possibly other universes, unless through some process we might come to expect, like a quantum tunelling from one universe to another. In fact, i believe the universes did at least at one time interact with each other. Let me explain.

I showed how you can have all the essential ingredients for spacetime to exist in a potential sea, but also imagine this sea existing as a multidimensional bulk where at one point some collision between two universes (or branes) happened. You could allow the extra dimensions of spacetime to disappear completely with a compactification of the extra dimensions to infinitely small sizes to being non-existent alltogether. The only reason why its not beneficial however in string theory to make these extra dimensions disappear entirely is due to the hopeful
answering of why gravity is so weak in this universe. So instead of compactifying them before nothing was left, string theorists compactified them on scales we cannot even measure yet, but they are there, according to the theory. In my interpretation, they are there no longer because they where once part of the multidimensional bulk, but upon interaction between the two universes caused them to shatter the multidimensional bulk as to completely identify a four dimensionsional vacuum emerging from it rather than one which seems to have these dimensions at
ridiculously-small levels. I like Brane theory, and the evolution of this universe is actually limiteless in the possibilities that may arise, and whatmore, they can involve initial beginnings of important events while still retaining a mother-principle which states that they are only the beginnings of changes, not the beginning of the dimensionsional origins themselves, because they can neatly remain eternal.

http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/Discover0204.pdf

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=3

What of the Time in this Universe then and the Time contained in the Bulk?

And so, if there is a multidimensional bulk, then we might also be able to have the time in our universe flow afterall. The problem with the idea of a time dimension which flows is that of the question of what it moves relative to... In my studies, the psychological principle clearly illustrates that time is relative to the observer when perception of time in its linear fashion is investigated. But the time dimension which makes the four-way manifold of this universe could be applied to a completely static dimensional bulk acting itself like an absolute
aether as though the universe itself is sitting on the wall of an aether field - which is a unique and i think new way to interpret the dimensional bulk. It would also answer why we haven't detected an absolute aether in experimentations, because our universe is not actually composed of any absolute aether, but is in fact cast upon a static changeless dimensional sea, from out of which emerges systems which do change internally, despite the Wheeler-de Witt equation.

Our universes time would be moving relative to a static time dimension, maybe many of them which consist of the bulk beyond the boundaries of the spacetime fabric. A study of my essay on time would suggest that time could certainly have these relative conditions to them. It would be hard to consistently say however that the static nature external of the universe would be hard to differentiate between the static models of this universe we have today... in fact, they would be indestinguishable, since we can statically-model the univere in a flash instant
present time method, where reality can be seen from a quantized temporal viewpoint, unleashing many important area's of discussion, again, most of these where covered in my essay and theory on the fundamental line of flux theory of time. The essay also covered why physicists today do not believe that time has a flow fundamentally (and some credit has gone to this young man http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ry_030806.html ) who applied the principle logically and showed how objects cannot have defined positions using the start-and-stop nature
of the universe. So from here, we are going to explore the nature of time from the invention of the bulk theory and what static dimensions of time would mean for the universe at large.

The Incredible Bulk

Peter Lynd, who shot to fame with his theory on time in the link previously given says, "If the universe were frozen static at such an instant, this would be a precise static instant of time -- time would be a physical quantity."

I want to argue that his point is flawed on the basis of biasm contained within which mathematical theory one decides to use to model the two different shifts in the universe, the geometric time and the fundamental time. Both exist, so one cannot be biased as to say time must be a physical quantity and therefore a static time dimension is impossible to have, because it would imply a static instant of physical time... however, if one admits to the existence of time in more than one form, then time may be considered as being geometric and fundemental, not to
mention static and non-static. As i said before, you can't ignore the laws of the universe, nor can one correctly describe the universe without a model of flow to time relative in respect to our experience of it, so something must give, even in Lynd's groundbreaking conclusions on physical instances.

Whilst i disagree with his absolution on his theory based on the previous statement he made concerning no static dimension of time, you can actually solve this problem by inviting a second time dimension, one that is static and lives alonside the imaginary timelike dimension of space we more commonly expect to call a non-static dimension of time. It would require mathematically an extra dimension of space too, but then you can have an adaquate theory of time which solves his problem without reducing the theory to the conclusion he had. But despite this, he has
not only shot to fame, but his theories on time and consciousness are gaining more and more attention, and have themselves important implications if correct, here is some of his work:

http://www.peterlynds.net.nz/plcs.pdf

http://necsi.org/events/iccs7/viewpaper.php?id=225

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0612/0612053.pdf

So in a sense, the solution i provided closely relates this to the Two-Time Dimensional physics by Doctor Bars with Lynd's conclusions which i believe can be solved by simply allowing the required dimensions without the unecessery paradoxes he attempts to solve, but i feel, erreneously. Even though his arguement i based on the specifics of not actually having an object possess a momenta if time where in a frozen featureless state, also meaning it would not have a position is actually very correct, but only touches on the theory of instantaneous fleeting flashes of existence in time theory
only very timidly. Truth is some very important factors are required to argue that every single statistical average in the universe past and future do exist simultaneously as present frames of time when the mathematics of quantizing space and time are taken into consideration. Time is indeed physical, despite what lynd claims, it just takes on a much smaller role - the consistency of upholding a physical fluctuation in any given amount of time, even in the smallest we could calculate $5.3(10^{-44})$ . So, to tell the truth, i've always been a fan of modifying
theories, but only when modification truely is required, and the modification itself is simple, but should not be any more harder; so the invitation of two new dimensions that are static in nature, one of the temporal and the other spatial can add the detail in the physical models we require to solve some very basic problems in the conceptualization of time in physics.

[excerpt note] - even though the geometric time theory can be argued not to be fundamental and thus implying the final theory to be dressed in the quantized version are only fooling themselves. For a unification of physics one would need to also why geomnetric time seems like an emergent property of the quantization of the vacuum itself.

Singularitarian · 6th September 2009, 04:16 PM

Sol - note what i said friend@

''I do not even want to attempt to think about a model other that incoporates time as existing like it does today without some primal beginning to it''

i ASK you a question..

How could time not be the same as the three space dimensions if time is actually primal? It would mean surely that either time is not primal - or

1) that time existed before the expansion of space in a static state or

2) space existed before the time expansion of events in a static state?

what is your contention to this?

temporalillusion · 6th September 2009, 04:23 PM

Quote:

because there was no observer around at Big Bang

There wasn't?

Singularitarian · 6th September 2009, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by temporalillusion

There wasn't?

Was there a conscious observer - a superintelligence if you wish? God?

Particles as observers hold very little to the great plan in the universe. Contained within a Wheeler- de Witt Universe there are no internal changes. Every particle may as well exist everywhere, for externally and relativistically-speaking, the universe has no alteration in movement internally nor an alternating energy... Here - hold on... this might interest you

Gee us a few seconds Gov!

Singularitarian · 6th September 2009, 05:48 PM

No Time, No Energy

And so imagine if we where to consider a timeless universe as adopted by many growing number of physicists, we would actually present ourselves with more problems, such as energy. To define the energy in the universe, you would almost certainly need time since time and energy are actingconjugates under the Noether Theorem; though, mind you, and not intentionally trying to complicate things, but how could anyone measure the energy of the universe because you would need to be outside of it to do so... but without adding any more to the problems, it still remains true thatneglecting time in a final theory of quantum mechanics will degrade the chances of measuring energy at levels required for quantum synthesis exploration, maybe more mathematically than so much experimentally.

In fact, the problem of time is the adaptation of the Scrodinger equation to a diffeomorphism invariant context by a quantizing equation gives the Wheeler-deWitt equation, which is an equation which governs the universe in a lifeless non-changing state, where time is essentially frozen, and the internal energy is non-changing. Everything should be best then to describe the universe which would be immutable [4].

But the universe does have an energy, just not one that can be well defined. Only a very small portion of this cloud will be condensed, and some of it we can observe measure in their various multi-particle systems to an approximation. But as expected, these problems concerning energy and timeare not alone. Without time, it is also contrary to our experience. Why would we seem to experience and represent something like a time if it was not in the manifold of space? Would evolution be audacious enough as to give us an experience of something so exotic it is not an extention of spaceitself, which would then imply that perhaps consciousness is not extention of space either? Consciousness and time are inexorably linked, and in many ways are the same. As i have already explained, remove time directionality, spice it up with a few negatives here and there as to allow it to notfollow a logical linear path, then our experiences in the world would be shortlived and perhaps even non-existent.

Singularitarian · 6th September 2009, 06:46 PM

Time is Relative to the Observer

And so will it become that these to seamingly different existences of time, one being quantized and the other geometric the same kind of problem facing a model of time when subliminal and external cases are involved? In fact, in many ways they are very similar. On face value, concerning the quantized notion of time and the geometric notion of time, one seems very local whilst in the other, relativity predicts that time doesn't even exist. When considering the mind-body problem and the experience of time, how can time to us seem so real and local whilst models that are independant of the human observer in [modern]psychophysics states that time ceases to have any real meaning. It's all relative, relative between objects, their internal clocks, possible self-reflection (or knowing of this phenom) to time itself.

To explain this better, we shall turn to Special Relativity. In this theory, Einstein incorporates the notion that two observers travelling relative to each other can experience time distortions in which the effect is quite noticable on the proverbial clock on the wall. Convieniently to this arguement however,time is not a clock, beleive it or not. It's only an instrument used to measure the duration in which events can pass, and we associate the feeling of this direction as the experience of time itself, but time is not consequential on the clock on the wall, for time would not simply disappear if the battery ranout now would it? Time would go on, in whatever shape or form one wishes to accept. Time is an abstraction which helps us manifest the meaning of a logical set of outcomes.

Now, in Einstein's Special Relativity, we must know that it is absolutely observer-dependant. It requires the relative motion between two objects, in this case, two observers who can measure sufficiently a time-delay. Without the observers, Einsteins theory would not hold. The importance of the measurementof the distortion in time itself is very important, and i conclude that the important nature is derived from the fact that time seems to be relative to ourselves. Is this another aspect of relativity that should be touched on? Even though time is completely ethereal by nature, and a conceptual abstraction, it does hold a significance to the human being. This experience we come to have, or better worded, relationship we have with time in this sense is touched on in ''asymptotic time'' as described by physics. Asymptotic time is the time we all come to experience, the time in which we come together in agreement on. But it alsomeans that time is something relative to the experience of the observer as thus to compare yet again relativistically between other time frames [8].

The Flux of Time

Is space and time are single entities in relativity, and since space is a vacuum that expands, does this literally mean that time expands also?

This is actually a really hard question to tackle, for a many good reasons, one of them comes down to geometry. You can argue that if time is part of the physical vacuum, then on geometrical time scale, it could be argued from relativity it must expand along with space; but strictly in an imaginary sense. You see, modellingspecial relativity into a four dimensional manifold requires that you take off the spacetime triangle a vector that would be described totally in imaginary terms, and here is some vector calculus to explain the four dimensional manifold in a Minkowskian Spacetime in this sub-reference[*]. If it was taken geometrically-true,the literal sense of space expanding would induce an imaginary-expanding void of time as well, if it engulfs the physical contraints of space itself. In a way, Leibniz' rule explained with some detail within this essay kind of inspires as a background to why space and time should be treated the same. A distance taken in somespace has some associated time dilation with it. The invariance of time, that imaginary dimension of space truely does gulf the entire existence of the geometry of space, introducing the geometical time. The fundamental time exists without any geometry, pointlike, instant and dimensionless.

Final Thoughts

The reason why timelessness in physics is even tolerated is because General Relativity finds it easy to yield a solution which opposes the idea. The General Theory only entertains what is mathematically-called the pure gravity solution, and this solution is a universe which is devoid of matter.Normally, it's considered pointless to assume a matter-less universe because the vacuum is a physical vacuum, and matter is but one part of the big manifold. In fact, Einstein once commented, ''Before relativity, we thought that if we removed all the matter in the universe, spacetime would continue to exist.We now know that spacetime would also disappear.'' Nevertheless, in these solutions of a pure gravity universe, it would mean there are no physical interactions, or physical relative relationships which are able to act as clocks, and this leads to no description of time.

Many will scoff at this and say, ''but matter does exist, so General relativity is either wrong or incomplete.'' Indeed, this could be very true. However, since no theory to date has overthrown the General and Special Theories of Relativity (not that i would imagine many have professionally-tried) due torelativities amazing success and measurement, it does stand that General Relativity will allow so far such a discription of a timeless universe. In many ways, its does just seem like a mathematical nonesense that seems to contradict our everyday experiences. However, as i have said, we have not has a better theorythan that of relativity to explain the world at large, and will remain this way until such a time. The search for the unified theory has been tackled from a classical viewpoint for around 150 years, hence, Einsteins theory does not take into account quantum certainty and remains itself a classical theory. Maybe some new physics is needed to explain the universe?

Certainly new physics is needed, but none in the nearest horizon it seems that are going to revolutionary throw Einsteins equally revolutionary theory out. Until then we are going to have to deal with a theory which can allow a timeless universe and those who wish to accept that this is the correct interpretationof reality at large. The point of this particular essay on time was to highlight and strengthen other points i have made previously. The main ones are that time is not only a quantized reality but is also a reality we come to experience. The threshold of time may not be as meaningful only on a quantized level, as it would implying also the existence of it from a geometrical perspective. Allowing the geometry and the fundamental to share time equally should not be such a paradox. In fact if anything, it should be quite a logical step, afterall, as i have said many times, the final theory of physics will need to answer for theseworlds where time can exist in anyway, whether it be quantization or the subliminal experience of time by the observer, afterall, are we still not part of this large whole we call the universe?

I conclude the following, which sums up the states of time;

1) - Anything that is real by context must exist strictly within present time (which is relative to their frame of reference), and that a change in one frame of this moment in present time produces the future moment, which is paradoxically experienced in the present. Because of this, the future does not exist. If by futurewe could envoke the new meaning ''more present time will proceed'' would be actually more true of the statement than saying it lyes ahead of us, which is completely erreneous.
2) - The past then also pertains to the same law - the law stating that nothing exists other than within the reality of present time, and so to believe that a past time existed alongside our own present time simultaneously seems to predict again an oxymoron. Concurrently, if anything can only exist in present time, then a pasttime cannot exist, only if we started to adopt again a new meaning for the past saying, ''The past was the present, and is the present.''
3) - This means that the future will be the present, as much as the past was the present, as much as they are the same as the current present time [10].
4) - From this, i conclude that the past and future are completely ''psychological''. Because we recognize a psychological arrow of time, this completely sets to us the awareness of moments happening in an order which to us feels like we increase from the past event, into the future, where we find this future information alreadypart of our memories, again due to the fact it is processed only in the present time [11].
5) - The implications of a cosmological application would imply that the beginning of the universe and the end of the universe will be indiscernible too. In fact, modern physics already agrees with kind of apporach, since the common agreement between scientists is that the end will happen in much the same way the beginning occurred - through the presence of some singularity [12].
(the following is less theoretical and more hypothetical)
So according to the fifth premise, what exactly does this tell us about any preferred direction in time? If the beginning began in much the same way it will end, then how can there really be any end point with a meaning more significant than the other? I tend to fall back on philosophical questions like, ''What state is the universe progressing to, and why did it chose to follow to that state?''

''Is this final state more important than the state it had began in? It seems that if you take this from a mathematical perspective, it means that both the end and the beginning are the same thing. They are nothing but singular regions of spacetime. But if we humans take a step back to look at thi universe, we do notice a specificorder which has arisen to this modern time, and how this order has managed to manifest many different possibilities. Some of these come in the forms of stars, planets, supernovea, galaxies, supergalaxies and so on, to entire galaxies spiralling around some galactic center. This order of matter has come together, fused bythe strong forces at the fundamental level, and held in planetary formation by the force of gravity at the levels we can observe. The state of the universe to us now, would certainly seem more ordered than what the universe would have been like a few chronons after the first initial instant of time. It would have been a hot messygas of plasma or electromagnetic energy, and would have taken a while (15 billion-odd years) to reach to todays present state, which has, out of the disorder, allowed some order to persist, namely ourselves. We can observe this world, and it seems very structured to us, safe (sometimes) and tangible. It's not ethereal, hot and messy like the early universe was, but nevertheless, entropy theory of physics suggests that the early universe was in fact in its most ordered state, where as time passes, the universe becomes more and more disordered through thermodynamics of particles and displacement of these particles from their original orientations. But in physics,we consider this to be true, despite the obviously opposing psychology of the human being, which seems to see more order really than disorder.
Perhaps there is more order now than what there was during the big bang? It is certain that according to wave mechanics that it is possible that the big bang is not as well-defined as todays universe is. Our very actions of observation according to the Copenhagen School of thought suggests we make the world more and more defined byour measurements. In fact, Doctor Fred Alan Wolf has shown in his book Parallel Universes 1985 that it is possible under the laws of quantum mechanics to suggest that our observations today are actually making the past of the universe more and more defined. The sudden collapse of the wave function would have a statistical effect on thepast state of the universe. In this notion, he adopts the use of the Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Now, if the universe is evolving to a more important state than what it originally begun in, then we would need to ask what it is. Is it the influence of the observer making the universe more defined by our observations [13]? Might we even dare to suggest a Strong Anthropic Principle and state that we may play a very important role inthe existence of the universe? The main thing which makes this so hard to beleive, is that compared to our existences, we are so small on a cosmological scale, infinitely so. Why would our tiny existences on equally a tiny peice of matter we call earth, which only makes up a fraction of all the matter in the universe (which is quite smallwhile we are it) make such an influence on the universe at large? I guess it depends on how much we actually contribute to the universe. The ultimate goal of the Anthropic Principle is prove that the universe began so that humans could exist, according to the physicist Frank J. Tipler, most noted for his work on Global Cosmology, the studyof relativity on a cosmological scale studying the possible ends it may experience due to the geometry of the vacuum.
If our existences are entirely special, and the universe also intended to design other intelligent lifeforms, it would certainly be more easier to believe than simply believing we are the be all and end all of the universes existence. Since we are actually pretty complicated ystems, with an equally baffling computerlike system we callthe consciousness, it seems that we could indeed have been a special part in the design of matter. We certainly live on a higher existence to matter in general, as we are alive. We are often completely surrounding in dead matter, so the appearance of life in general excites the question of how much our appearance in the universe was actuallydesigned... If it was the universes goal, it would explain many of the philosophical contraints of physics concerning our existences, and the goal to find a unified theory of gravity in general.

Do not continue to post this same material. If you do so again, it will be considered spam.

Posted By:Lisa Simpson

Jeff Corey · 6th September 2009, 07:06 PM

tfl;dr.

Singularitarian · 6th September 2009, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by Jeff Corey

tfl;dr.

And a ''woof'' back to you too.

wollery · 6th September 2009, 07:10 PM

I got as far as,

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

According to Quantum Physics, because there was no observer around at Big Bang, all possible start-up positions had to arise side-by-side, because no resolution was ever made to distinguish one from another.

and gave up.

Giggywig · 6th September 2009, 07:11 PM

Pete and Repeat were on a boat. Pete fell overboard. What do you have left? Repeat.

arthwollipot · 6th September 2009, 07:14 PM

wtfl;dr.

Singularitarian · 6th September 2009, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by wollery

I got as far as,and gave up.

This is because when the initial beginning occured, the wave function gave a possibility of one universe out of an infinite amount of possibilities.

ynot · 6th September 2009, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

The Laws are Incomprehensible, We are just no Einstein's!/ . . . . . . . . . . /why geomnetric time seems like an emergent property of the quantization of the vacuum itself.

Methinks thou doth profess too much!

No more coffee or sugar for you today.

Singularitarian · 6th September 2009, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

wtfl;dr.

(Woof)^2 ; lol

Singularitarian · 6th September 2009, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by ynot

Methinks thou doth profess too much!

No more coffee or sugar for you today.

No read over it properly/ a referenced proof to this has been given.

ynot · 6th September 2009, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

No read over it properly/ a referenced proof to this has been given.

I was referring to the quantity and not necessarily the quality. If I ever get the time to read and digest I might then comment on the quality.

Hokulele · 6th September 2009, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

This is because when the initial beginning occured, the wave function gave a possibility of one universe out of an infinite amount of possibilities.

Someone has access to a quantum gravity theory?

Jeff Corey · 6th September 2009, 08:13 PM

Ls/mft

fallout · 6th September 2009, 08:30 PM

Singularitarian,

With the due respect, you make your posts too long, that disencourages people to read, think about them, and spare more time elaborating and posting. People usually don´t have several hours to deal with a single thread like this one, I guess.

Try presenting them in a more succint way and then if people pays enough attention or demand more, you post more. What you think about it?

sol invictus · 6th September 2009, 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

\
i ASK you a question..

[b]How could time not be the same as the three space dimensions if time is actually primal?

I've no idea what "primal" means to you.

Quote:

1) that time existed before the expansion of space in a static state or

"expansion... in a static state" is a contradiction in terms, so I'm afraid I can't answer that one either.

Quote:

2) space existed before the time expansion of events in a static state?

Strike 3.... and you're out!

Singularitarian · 6th September 2009, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by fallout

Singularitarian,

With the due respect, you make your posts too long, that disencourages people to read, think about them, and spare more time elaborating and posting. People usually don´t have several hours to deal with a single thread like this one, I guess.

Try presenting them in a more succint way and then if people pays enough attention or demand more, you post more. What you think about it?

I don't understand. I had no more and less than what i required to say...

Singularitarian · 6th September 2009, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by sol invictus

I've no idea what "primal" means to you.

(1)

"expansion... in a static state" is a contradiction in terms, so I'm afraid I can't answer that one either.

(2)

Strike 3.... and you're out!

(1) - ''Primal'' means ''beinning'' or even better expressed as a ''system which was initial''. Do you deny that the first ''system which was initial'' was not indeed space and including the primal form of time itself? If time did not initiate as the same thing as space, then how can you differentiate over systems which are time-dependant?

(2) - No. Time can exist in a static frozen state before any initial expansion. Read up on Ekpyrotic Theory.

(3) - I think you can eat your own words. You aren't a scientist - nor do you understand physics. You are at best, High School Level.

Singularitarian · 6th September 2009, 09:48 PM

Originally Posted by Hokulele

Someone has access to a quantum gravity theory?

What?

Hokulele · 6th September 2009, 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

What?

There is a reason QM cannot be used to describe t=0.

PixyMisa · 7th September 2009, 01:34 AM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

According to Quantum Physics, because there was no observer around at Big Bang, all possible start-up positions had to arise side-by-side, because no resolution was ever made to distinguish one from another. Now, physics can be a bit tedious at times.

This is only true of certain interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. If you take the view that wave function collapse is stochastic (which appears to be consistent with our observations) then your premise is simply untrue.

Quote:

This superpositioning at the beginning means that every outcome lay as a potential, totally superimposed upon each other, like layers on a cake - an infinite amount of them.

No. The number would be large (if we grant your first premise) but necessarily finite (unless the Universe itself is infinite).

Quote:

And so all this potential i speak of was resident somehow before the big bang came into existence.

No. You can't do that. When you're speaking of the creation of the Universe, "potential", "resident", and "before" are terms without referents, completely meaningless.

Quote:

We cannot be meaning however that there is some time associated to the potential that existed, because time itself had not even begun as remained a dorment mesh of virtual reality itself.

It's not a "dorment mesh" of anything. It does not exist.

Quote:

The appearance of matter and energy in the universe implied to the simultaneous existence of the universe.

Well, the other way 'round, really.

Quote:

What caused the existence to appear would then seem to be some statistical change in this field which describes the entire state vector possibilities of the universe.

Nope. The field is the Universe. The Universe is the field.

Quote:

What triggered such an audacious act? Fluke again perhaps?

The question is not meaningful.

Quote:

This potnetial sea still exists with us today, hidden within the universe existing in an ethereal virtual state.

No.

Quote:

This density of energy covers every corner of the universe, and is called the zero-point field.

No.

Quote:

Somehow this field, having all the properties necessery to create reality as we know it today, give birth to every peice of matter in the universe.

No.

Quote:

In fact, every entity or notion or concept ultimately arises from this potential sea.

No.

Quote:

The BEST way to imagine this potentia before any resolution in the sudden appearance of time and space is to understand that the potential ingredients did not scope over any real dimesions, it did not take up any space or time to have this potential stuff, not did it exist in a void or any vacuum.

No.

Quote:

It's completely ellusive nature before the appearance of big bang makes it one of the most difficult concepts to believe.

The existence of virtual particles has been experimentally verified. However, you are talking nonsense.

Quote:

How can something that doesn't really exist, still give rise to something which does?

It does, and it didn't.

[snipped the rest]

PingOfPong · 7th September 2009, 02:29 AM

In my classes, physics was presented to me somewhat like this:

1) An introductory discussion about a topic.

2) Some math definitions and derivations.

3) Discussion of the math results obtained.

4) Discussion of any notable experiments that had results which were predicted by the math. In other words, evidence.

5) Sample problems that demonstrate the math and logic of what we had learned.

Singularitarian, you're post is incomprehensible to me in addition to being very long and full of grammatical errors. If you really want to share your ideas with anyone then you need to seriously consider how most people discuss, learn, and teach physics. If you can't relate your idea to anyone then what's the point?

Dr Adequate · 7th September 2009, 02:34 AM

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Singularitarian · 7th September 2009, 06:00 AM

I have so much to say but so little time. Also - anyone mentioning grammatical errors again are going to be ignored. I'm sick of that being used as an excuse to discredit.

Singularitarian · 7th September 2009, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by Hokulele

There is a reason QM cannot be used to describe t=0.

Well of course. The quantity is just about as accessible as \psi|H>. It has a zero quantity for time, meaning this is the ''time'' before time. This is where language really fails physics.

Singularitarian · 7th September 2009, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by PingOfPong

In my classes, physics was presented to me somewhat like this:

1) An introductory discussion about a topic.

2) Some math definitions and derivations.

3) Discussion of the math results obtained.

4) Discussion of any notable experiments that had results which were predicted by the math. In other words, evidence.

5) Sample problems that demonstrate the math and logic of what we had learned.

Singularitarian, you're post is incomprehensible to me in addition to being very long and full of grammatical errors. If you really want to share your ideas with anyone then you need to seriously consider how most people discuss, learn, and teach physics. If you can't relate your idea to anyone then what's the point?

1) I gave what can be defined as an abstract in a new ''easier to understand post'' Please look for it.

2) - Done the derivations too.

3)I have also discussed my interpretation of the math. For instance i defined a new geometry. In the ''master equation'' of my theory $v^2h(c/G)=E^2/c^2 - p^2$ was interpreted to assume that the fundemental parameters given on the left hand side is showing the geometry how to configurate. On the other hand, the geometry is telling these fundemental constants how to act together.

4) I sampled one problem, that is that my theory would need to proove that gravitational mass actually decreases by very small quantities related to the charge $(-\phi_(\mu))$ is a gravitationally-weaker field. The reason why are because of the following propositions, made i feel through logic and mathematical logic at that. I refer you very quickly to the matrix formulation which showed how its possible to have to couplings with a magnitude strong enough to generate mass, components all intrinsically related to the gravitational potential field $\Phi$ . So, the shift would be small $\delta$ , but adiquate to answer for how gravitational charge coupling to a gravitational field for any moving particle has a langrange density formed as the production of the gravitational mass itself. In effect, the gravitational charge is mass, and can only be caused when moving through a field.

so...

I think you've been unfair and disingeneous towards your forensic analysis of the work, if you even bothered using any imagination to help yourself understand.

Singularitarian · 7th September 2009, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

This is only true of certain interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. If you take the view that wave function collapse is stochastic (which appears to be consistent with our observations) then your premise is simply untrue.

No. The number would be large (if we grant your first premise) but necessarily finite (unless the Universe itself is infinite).

No. You can't do that. When you're speaking of the creation of the Universe, "potential", "resident", and "before" are terms without referents, completely meaningless.

It's not a "dorment mesh" of anything. It does not exist.

Well, the other way 'round, really.

Nope. The field is the Universe. The Universe is the field.

The question is not meaningful.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

The existence of virtual particles has been experimentally verified. However, you are talking nonsense.

It does, and it didn't.

[snipped the rest]

''No'' to nearly every sentence is worthy of being considered troll behaviour. You've not even provided any reasons why you object so heavily. I am developing a really sensistive psychological oppinion of some peoples actions round here, and it's... to say the least, upsetting. I almost feel sorry for this rebelious age.

Evilgiraffe · 7th September 2009, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

Well of course. The quantity is just about as accessible as \psi|H>.

Is the bolded section supposed to be bra-ket notation? If so, how come you have the wavefunction acting on the Hamiltonian? This is strange physics indeed.

PixyMisa · 7th September 2009, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

''No'' to nearly every sentence is worthy of being considered troll behaviour. You've not even provided any reasons why you object so heavily.

Wrong.

All of the sentences to which I replied "no" are false because they depend on premises that were shown to be false or unsupported earlier.

ETA: Actually, some of them are just plain wrong of their own accord.

Quote:

I am developing a really sensistive psychological oppinion of some peoples actions round here, and it's... to say the least, upsetting. I almost feel sorry for this rebelious age.

That's your problem. You're still wrong.

wollery · 7th September 2009, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

I have so much to say but so little time. Also - anyone mentioning grammatical errors again are going to be ignored. I'm sick of that being used as an excuse to discredit.

People aren't using your poor grammar to discredit you, they're pointing out that it makes it almost impossible to read and understand your posts, which are difficult enough because of their length.

This makes people less inclined to read your posts, so your intended message gets lost.

If you have something that you believe is important to tell people then take the time and effort to say it clearly and understandably, otherwise you'll just be ignored.

Cuddles · 7th September 2009, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

I'm sick of that being used as an excuse to discredit.

The grammar is not used to discredit you, it's simply pointed out that in addition to making no sense scientifically, your posts rarely make sense from a linguistic point of view either. If you want people to take you at all seriously, you really need to sort out at least one of those two areas.

sol invictus · 7th September 2009, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

(1) - ''Primal'' means ''beinning'' or even better expressed as a ''system which was initial''. Do you deny that the first ''system which was initial'' was not indeed space and including the primal form of time itself? If time did not initiate as the same thing as space, then how can you differentiate over systems which are time-dependant?

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand your questions.

Quote:

(2) - No. Time can exist in a static frozen state before any initial expansion. Read up on Ekpyrotic Theory.

I see no connection between that and your previous question, nor is that itself a question, so again I can't respond.

Quote:

(3) - I think you can eat your own words. You aren't a scientist - nor do you understand physics. You are at best, High School Level.

Whatever you say.

edd · 7th September 2009, 10:12 AM

Sol, which school do you go to? I will have to send my kids there.

sol invictus · 7th September 2009, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by edd

Sol, which school do you go to? I will have to send my kids there.

James Randi High, of course. I'm not sure I'd recommend it for your kids, though.... not all the teachers are fully qualified.

ben m · 7th September 2009, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by sol invictus

James Randi High, of course. I'm not sure I'd recommend it for your kids, though.... not all the teachers are fully qualified.

They'll be fine if they can pass the dreaded entrance exam.

boooeee · 7th September 2009, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by Singularitarian

I have so much to say but so little time.

Strike that. Reverse it.

6th September 2009, 04:08 PM	#1
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	A Time Theory Extended The Laws are Incomprehensible, We are just no Einstein's! ''The most incomprehensible thing is that the universe is comprehensible,'' Albert Einstein According to Quantum Physics, because there was no observer around at Big Bang, all possible start-up positions had to arise side-by-side, because no resolution was ever made to distinguish one from another. Now, physics can be a bit tedious at times. To get around our misunderstandings we can apply some rather ridiculas examples to explain how we are supposed to envision situations. To explain this 'superpositioning' in the very beginning, I’m going to use a classic analogy - one you may have heard of, or seen in cartoons; it is the 100 monkeys all typing away randomly on type writers... statistics says, that if you give these hypothetical monkeys long enough, they will eventually write a famous piece of work, like Shakespeare's, 'A Midsummer Nights Dream...' Now, you can imagine these monkeys being the equivalent of the universe 15 billion years ago - bare with me on this, as bizarre as it might sound - imagine that these random pushing’s of buttons resembled the universe at time zero, a attentively flicking through all possible start up positions. You can think about the statistics with the monkeys for a second. The chances they would create a 'Shakespearean' play runs into billions upon billions upon billions - almost unthinkable numbers - granted, that the monkeys would eventually do so, in the matter of 10 years, to 10 billion years. The product of this play, is equivalent to the product of everything visible today. Whether one considers the start up condition chosen by the universe as nothing but a fluke, or some divine purpose or otherwise, it is truly remarkable. This superpositioning at the beginning means that every outcome lay as a potential, totally superimposed upon each other, like layers on a cake - an infinite amount of them. Gods Resevior And so all this potential i speak of was resident somehow before the big bang came into existence. We cannot be meaning however that there is some time associated to the potential that existed, because time itself had not even begun as remained a dorment mesh of virtual reality itself. The appearance of matter and energy in the universe implied to the simultaneous existence of the universe. What caused the existence to appear would then seem to be some statistical change in this field which describes the entire state vector possibilities of the universe. What triggered such an audacious act? Fluke again perhaps? This potnetial sea still exists with us today, hidden within the universe existing in an ethereal virtual state. This density of energy covers every corner of the universe, and is called the zero-point field. Somehow this field, having all the properties necessery to create reality as we know it today, give birth to every peice of matter in the universe. In fact, every entity or notion or concept ultimately arises from this potential sea. The BEST way to imagine this potentia before any resolution in the sudden appearance of time and space is to understand that the potential ingredients did not scope over any real dimesions, it did not take up any space or time to have this potential stuff, not did it exist in a void or any vacuum. It's completely ellusive nature before the appearance of big bang makes it one of the most difficult concepts to believe. How can something that doesn't really exist, still give rise to something which does? In many ways, for any believers in some intelligent Grand Creation, then the being responsible used this potential in one of the most remarkable ways. The being must have decided to initiate this universe over all the other possible-known universes because this universe was just consistent to make life. Even Hawking not too long ago admitted that we might need to start accepting that an Anthropic Principle model of quantum mechanics is inescapable. The conclusions are bizarre. We can have a potential sea of everything needed to create the universe, but it never really existed - it's so imaginary on every level that nothingness pervaded the void, and then it wasn't so suddenly and spontaneously, so it might it be that something with a little more substance could have existed before the big bang? I seriously doubt that the current model of what existed before the big bang (which really accounts to nothing) seems to be wrong in our understandings through the logic we entertain the theory with, because obviously this ''nothingness'' was in fact the ''everything-ness'' that was required to set to the initial laws and expansion of the universe. Using this same logic, we begin to have some idea as to what might be required; a multidimensional infinite pool where our universe happens to be an emergent property of this everything-ness. The Time Before Time One major problem is our language; even though in the dictionary there are approximately 171,476 words in current use, and 47,156 obsolete words, and whilst they equally make a wide range of vocabulary, the essential descriptions we give the standard laws of the physical universe concerning big bang break down - as though being a conceptual error of understanding because of the words we use. A good example was given above explaining how the nothingness of the universe before big bang was practically the everything-ness that was required to have the universe emerge as a vacuum. Yes, our language makes our descriptions hard to fathom, theoretically and conceptually. So where our language can degrade our chances of making sense of the deep metaphysical and philosophical roots of physics, we need to find new ways as to explain our models without any conceptual-breakdowns. It won't be easy, and it's task i decided to take on myself as to understand a better model for explaining existence in terms of a big bang. Instead of saying that there is nothing before the beginning of time, it might be best that time has actually been around for an infinity. If we allow our universe which is a four-dimensional manifold to be an ''object'' that floats around in a multidimensional pool, then we have ourselves a theory where time has actually persisted forever, and that the emergence of our universe is of some ''shatter'' in the multidimensional pool, analogous to breaking on mirror into many different but smaller parts, and those parts which represent the four dimensions that we personally observe and experience are but the larger shards of a much more complex and compactified structure in the emergent properties of the spacetime vacuum. In fact, this is what string theory models have been trying to do, by describing the universe in terms of superpositioned universes of a much larger spacetime hierarchy of dimensions, and by allowing the universe to have these extra dimensions, we may speculate that the universe is not simply floating around in nothing, but rather floating in a much more complicated spacetime realm, one with possibly an infinite amount of dimensions - But M-Theories 11 dimensions would suffice obviously. You can have the model two ways. Treat spacetime normally with four dimensions, but being an emergent object from a much more complicated realm of dimensions, or you can have the same amount of dimensions (so long as its not an infinity of them) which make the pool, and simply apply the normal interpretational model which string theory models give, such as these dimensions exist hidden from us in this universe because they where compactified by some catastrophic event. Hyperspace theory states exactly this... But, what is hyperspace theory? Before the Big Bang, it states that our universe had ten dimensions, just like superstring theory predicts. Then, very suddenly, the universe 'cracked', and our universe was born. This cataclysmic event allowed our 4-dimensional space to expand, whilst our twin 6-dimensional universe contracted in a volatile manor, and shrank to infinitesimal size. In fact, we find that the Ekpyrotic Theory evidently goes hand-in-hand with this hypothesis. If hyperspace theory is correct, then it can explain that the current observable rapid expansion of the universe was a result of the cataclysm - thus, the death of our universe, which will most possibly be caused by rapid expansion causing the 'Big Chill', may in fact be caused by the cracking of multi-dimensional spacetime. Using the idea however that perhaps spacetime truely is four-dimensional which would be most rational since they are obviously there and contending that it's like a four dimensionsional object floating about in a multidimensional pool is quite a strange thing to imagine, if one can. If someone could observe the universe moving through this place, it would be remarkably wierd where the dimensions twist and curl and defy normal understandings. For instance, if i decided to take a strole in the fifth dimension according to string theory, i can find myself moving forward just to end up where i began? Wierd or what? Whilst the fifth dimension is an electromagnetic dimension, the hypothetical sixth dimension can even be entire baby universes themselves, with their own reality of matter and gas! The laws would seem strange indeed and the universe would certainly not move through it in any linear sense. What is even more interesting, is that it would imply Einstein was wrong about the universe being a self-contained object as with such a model, you can now apply the universe relative to something else; the mulidimensional pool in which the droplet of this universe was extracted. I do not even want to attempt to think about a model other that incoporates time as existing like it does today without some primal beginning to it, even because the beginning of the universe is being more consistently proven with each passing observation of the cosmos. But i am heavily open to the idea that time could have existed before the initial beginning of this universe, just in a different form, in a much more complex form or forms since more than one time-dimension is very consistent with theory. Remember, the variation of the theory i believe in does not encorporate any more than the four dimensions in this universe, but can suggest that it is a droplet from a much larger sea. An excellent discussion is present here in this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/7598996.stm where doctor cox explains some of the idea's following the exploration of a multidimensional bulk. In the string theory brane model, this universe does interact with the other universes via gravitational forces, but since my theory neglects the use having these extra dimensions within this manifold, then it might invoke a whole new meaning, where our universe does not interact with any physical meaning with possibly other universes, unless through some process we might come to expect, like a quantum tunelling from one universe to another. In fact, i believe the universes did at least at one time interact with each other. Let me explain. I showed how you can have all the essential ingredients for spacetime to exist in a potential sea, but also imagine this sea existing as a multidimensional bulk where at one point some collision between two universes (or branes) happened. You could allow the extra dimensions of spacetime to disappear completely with a compactification of the extra dimensions to infinitely small sizes to being non-existent alltogether. The only reason why its not beneficial however in string theory to make these extra dimensions disappear entirely is due to the hopeful answering of why gravity is so weak in this universe. So instead of compactifying them before nothing was left, string theorists compactified them on scales we cannot even measure yet, but they are there, according to the theory. In my interpretation, they are there no longer because they where once part of the multidimensional bulk, but upon interaction between the two universes caused them to shatter the multidimensional bulk as to completely identify a four dimensionsional vacuum emerging from it rather than one which seems to have these dimensions at ridiculously-small levels. I like Brane theory, and the evolution of this universe is actually limiteless in the possibilities that may arise, and whatmore, they can involve initial beginnings of important events while still retaining a mother-principle which states that they are only the beginnings of changes, not the beginning of the dimensionsional origins themselves, because they can neatly remain eternal. http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/Discover0204.pdf http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=3 What of the Time in this Universe then and the Time contained in the Bulk? And so, if there is a multidimensional bulk, then we might also be able to have the time in our universe flow afterall. The problem with the idea of a time dimension which flows is that of the question of what it moves relative to... In my studies, the psychological principle clearly illustrates that time is relative to the observer when perception of time in its linear fashion is investigated. But the time dimension which makes the four-way manifold of this universe could be applied to a completely static dimensional bulk acting itself like an absolute aether as though the universe itself is sitting on the wall of an aether field - which is a unique and i think new way to interpret the dimensional bulk. It would also answer why we haven't detected an absolute aether in experimentations, because our universe is not actually composed of any absolute aether, but is in fact cast upon a static changeless dimensional sea, from out of which emerges systems which do change internally, despite the Wheeler-de Witt equation. Our universes time would be moving relative to a static time dimension, maybe many of them which consist of the bulk beyond the boundaries of the spacetime fabric. A study of my essay on time would suggest that time could certainly have these relative conditions to them. It would be hard to consistently say however that the static nature external of the universe would be hard to differentiate between the static models of this universe we have today... in fact, they would be indestinguishable, since we can statically-model the univere in a flash instant present time method, where reality can be seen from a quantized temporal viewpoint, unleashing many important area's of discussion, again, most of these where covered in my essay and theory on the fundamental line of flux theory of time. The essay also covered why physicists today do not believe that time has a flow fundamentally (and some credit has gone to this young man http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ry_030806.html ) who applied the principle logically and showed how objects cannot have defined positions using the start-and-stop nature of the universe. So from here, we are going to explore the nature of time from the invention of the bulk theory and what static dimensions of time would mean for the universe at large. The Incredible Bulk Peter Lynd, who shot to fame with his theory on time in the link previously given says, "If the universe were frozen static at such an instant, this would be a precise static instant of time -- time would be a physical quantity." I want to argue that his point is flawed on the basis of biasm contained within which mathematical theory one decides to use to model the two different shifts in the universe, the geometric time and the fundamental time. Both exist, so one cannot be biased as to say time must be a physical quantity and therefore a static time dimension is impossible to have, because it would imply a static instant of physical time... however, if one admits to the existence of time in more than one form, then time may be considered as being geometric and fundemental, not to mention static and non-static. As i said before, you can't ignore the laws of the universe, nor can one correctly describe the universe without a model of flow to time relative in respect to our experience of it, so something must give, even in Lynd's groundbreaking conclusions on physical instances. Whilst i disagree with his absolution on his theory based on the previous statement he made concerning no static dimension of time, you can actually solve this problem by inviting a second time dimension, one that is static and lives alonside the imaginary timelike dimension of space we more commonly expect to call a non-static dimension of time. It would require mathematically an extra dimension of space too, but then you can have an adaquate theory of time which solves his problem without reducing the theory to the conclusion he had. But despite this, he has not only shot to fame, but his theories on time and consciousness are gaining more and more attention, and have themselves important implications if correct, here is some of his work: http://www.peterlynds.net.nz/plcs.pdf http://necsi.org/events/iccs7/viewpaper.php?id=225 http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0612/0612053.pdf So in a sense, the solution i provided closely relates this to the Two-Time Dimensional physics by Doctor Bars with Lynd's conclusions which i believe can be solved by simply allowing the required dimensions without the unecessery paradoxes he attempts to solve, but i feel, erreneously. Even though his arguement i based on the specifics of not actually having an object possess a momenta if time where in a frozen featureless state, also meaning it would not have a position is actually very correct, but only touches on the theory of instantaneous fleeting flashes of existence in time theory only very timidly. Truth is some very important factors are required to argue that every single statistical average in the universe past and future do exist simultaneously as present frames of time when the mathematics of quantizing space and time are taken into consideration. Time is indeed physical, despite what lynd claims, it just takes on a much smaller role - the consistency of upholding a physical fluctuation in any given amount of time, even in the smallest we could calculate $5.3(10^{-44})$ . So, to tell the truth, i've always been a fan of modifying theories, but only when modification truely is required, and the modification itself is simple, but should not be any more harder; so the invitation of two new dimensions that are static in nature, one of the temporal and the other spatial can add the detail in the physical models we require to solve some very basic problems in the conceptualization of time in physics. [excerpt note] - even though the geometric time theory can be argued not to be fundamental and thus implying the final theory to be dressed in the quantized version are only fooling themselves. For a unification of physics one would need to also why geomnetric time seems like an emergent property of the quantization of the vacuum itself.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

6th September 2009, 04:16 PM	#2
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	Sol - note what i said friend@ ''I do not even want to attempt to think about a model other that incoporates time as existing like it does today without some primal beginning to it'' i ASK you a question.. How could time not be the same as the three space dimensions if time is actually primal? It would mean surely that either time is not primal - or 1) that time existed before the expansion of space in a static state or 2) space existed before the time expansion of events in a static state? what is your contention to this?
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

6th September 2009, 04:23 PM	#3
temporalillusion Muse Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 502	Quote: because there was no observer around at Big Bang There wasn't?
temporalillusion Muse Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 502	__________________ One man's reason that something is not reliable evidence is another man's whine about how others won't buy 3 magic beans with the family cow. - hgc

6th September 2009, 05:45 PM	#4
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	Originally Posted by temporalillusion There wasn't? Was there a conscious observer - a superintelligence if you wish? God? Particles as observers hold very little to the great plan in the universe. Contained within a Wheeler- de Witt Universe there are no internal changes. Every particle may as well exist everywhere, for externally and relativistically-speaking, the universe has no alteration in movement internally nor an alternating energy... Here - hold on... this might interest you Gee us a few seconds Gov!
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

6th September 2009, 05:48 PM	#5
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	No Time, No Energy And so imagine if we where to consider a timeless universe as adopted by many growing number of physicists, we would actually present ourselves with more problems, such as energy. To define the energy in the universe, you would almost certainly need time since time and energy are actingconjugates under the Noether Theorem; though, mind you, and not intentionally trying to complicate things, but how could anyone measure the energy of the universe because you would need to be outside of it to do so... but without adding any more to the problems, it still remains true thatneglecting time in a final theory of quantum mechanics will degrade the chances of measuring energy at levels required for quantum synthesis exploration, maybe more mathematically than so much experimentally. In fact, the problem of time is the adaptation of the Scrodinger equation to a diffeomorphism invariant context by a quantizing equation gives the Wheeler-deWitt equation, which is an equation which governs the universe in a lifeless non-changing state, where time is essentially frozen, and the internal energy is non-changing. Everything should be best then to describe the universe which would be immutable [4]. But the universe does have an energy, just not one that can be well defined. Only a very small portion of this cloud will be condensed, and some of it we can observe measure in their various multi-particle systems to an approximation. But as expected, these problems concerning energy and timeare not alone. Without time, it is also contrary to our experience. Why would we seem to experience and represent something like a time if it was not in the manifold of space? Would evolution be audacious enough as to give us an experience of something so exotic it is not an extention of spaceitself, which would then imply that perhaps consciousness is not extention of space either? Consciousness and time are inexorably linked, and in many ways are the same. As i have already explained, remove time directionality, spice it up with a few negatives here and there as to allow it to notfollow a logical linear path, then our experiences in the world would be shortlived and perhaps even non-existent.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

6th September 2009, 07:06 PM	#7
Jeff Corey New York Skeptic Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,731	tfl;dr.

6th September 2009, 07:09 PM	#8
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	Originally Posted by Jeff Corey tfl;dr. And a ''woof'' back to you too.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

6th September 2009, 07:10 PM	#9
wollery Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: City of Eternal Spring Posts: 8,623	I got as far as, Originally Posted by Singularitarian According to Quantum Physics, because there was no observer around at Big Bang, all possible start-up positions had to arise side-by-side, because no resolution was ever made to distinguish one from another. and gave up.
	__________________ "You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad "Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin

6th September 2009, 07:11 PM	#10
Giggywig Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: North Carolina Posts: 1,714	Pete and Repeat were on a boat. Pete fell overboard. What do you have left? Repeat.
	__________________ Linus: "Why do I have to get a measles shot? Who ever worries about measles? What's a little 'rubeola' among friends?" Lucy: "Your stupidity is appalling!!!" Linus: "Most stupidity is!"

6th September 2009, 07:14 PM	#11
arthwollipot The Accidental Podcaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: On the other side of your screen. Posts: 28,320	wtfl;dr.
	__________________ The Nonsense Podcast Episode 17: Coming Mid-February. We welcome Lexi Hameister into the world at 1830 on 29 January! What's an "arthwollipot"?

6th September 2009, 07:15 PM	#12
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	Originally Posted by wollery I got as far as,and gave up. This is because when the initial beginning occured, the wave function gave a possibility of one universe out of an infinite amount of possibilities.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

6th September 2009, 07:15 PM	#13
ynot Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 2,130	Originally Posted by Singularitarian The Laws are Incomprehensible, We are just no Einstein's!/ . . . . . . . . . . /why geomnetric time seems like an emergent property of the quantization of the vacuum itself. Methinks thou doth profess too much! No more coffee or sugar for you today.
	__________________ Believers don't possess beliefs - Believers are possessed by beliefs.

6th September 2009, 07:16 PM	#14
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	Originally Posted by arthwollipot wtfl;dr. (Woof)^2 ; lol
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

6th September 2009, 07:18 PM	#15
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	Originally Posted by ynot Methinks thou doth profess too much! No more coffee or sugar for you today. No read over it properly/ a referenced proof to this has been given.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

6th September 2009, 07:26 PM	#16
ynot Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 2,130	Originally Posted by Singularitarian No read over it properly/ a referenced proof to this has been given. I was referring to the quantity and not necessarily the quality. If I ever get the time to read and digest I might then comment on the quality.
	__________________ Believers don't possess beliefs - Believers are possessed by beliefs.

6th September 2009, 07:55 PM	#17
Hokulele Official Nemesis TLA Dictatrix Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: To be determined. Posts: 21,349	Originally Posted by Singularitarian This is because when the initial beginning occured, the wave function gave a possibility of one universe out of an infinite amount of possibilities. Someone has access to a quantum gravity theory?
	__________________ You, madam, do not appear to be bound by the physical laws that govern the rest of us. - JoeyDonuts You should listen to the evil one - Don't try to understand it, just experience it. - AJM8125

6th September 2009, 08:13 PM	#18
Jeff Corey New York Skeptic Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,731	Ls/mft

6th September 2009, 08:30 PM	#19
fallout Scholar Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 96	Singularitarian, With the due respect, you make your posts too long, that disencourages people to read, think about them, and spare more time elaborating and posting. People usually don´t have several hours to deal with a single thread like this one, I guess. Try presenting them in a more succint way and then if people pays enough attention or demand more, you post more. What you think about it?
fallout Scholar Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 96

6th September 2009, 08:41 PM	#20
sol invictus Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Nova Roma Posts: 5,153	Originally Posted by Singularitarian \ i ASK you a question.. [b]How could time not be the same as the three space dimensions if time is actually primal? I've no idea what "primal" means to you. Quote: 1) that time existed before the expansion of space in a static state or "expansion... in a static state" is a contradiction in terms, so I'm afraid I can't answer that one either. Quote: 2) space existed before the time expansion of events in a static state? Strike 3.... and you're out!

6th September 2009, 09:43 PM	#21
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	Originally Posted by fallout Singularitarian, With the due respect, you make your posts too long, that disencourages people to read, think about them, and spare more time elaborating and posting. People usually don´t have several hours to deal with a single thread like this one, I guess. Try presenting them in a more succint way and then if people pays enough attention or demand more, you post more. What you think about it? I don't understand. I had no more and less than what i required to say...
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

6th September 2009, 09:47 PM	#22
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	Originally Posted by sol invictus I've no idea what "primal" means to you. (1) "expansion... in a static state" is a contradiction in terms, so I'm afraid I can't answer that one either. (2) Strike 3.... and you're out! (1) - ''Primal'' means ''beinning'' or even better expressed as a ''system which was initial''. Do you deny that the first ''system which was initial'' was not indeed space and including the primal form of time itself? If time did not initiate as the same thing as space, then how can you differentiate over systems which are time-dependant? (2) - No. Time can exist in a static frozen state before any initial expansion. Read up on Ekpyrotic Theory. (3) - I think you can eat your own words. You aren't a scientist - nor do you understand physics. You are at best, High School Level.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

6th September 2009, 09:48 PM	#23
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	Originally Posted by Hokulele Someone has access to a quantum gravity theory? What?
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

6th September 2009, 11:52 PM	#24
Hokulele Official Nemesis TLA Dictatrix Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: To be determined. Posts: 21,349	Originally Posted by Singularitarian What? There is a reason QM cannot be used to describe t=0.
	__________________ You, madam, do not appear to be bound by the physical laws that govern the rest of us. - JoeyDonuts You should listen to the evil one - Don't try to understand it, just experience it. - AJM8125

7th September 2009, 01:34 AM	#25
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 8,087	Originally Posted by Singularitarian According to Quantum Physics, because there was no observer around at Big Bang, all possible start-up positions had to arise side-by-side, because no resolution was ever made to distinguish one from another. Now, physics can be a bit tedious at times. This is only true of certain interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. If you take the view that wave function collapse is stochastic (which appears to be consistent with our observations) then your premise is simply untrue. Quote: This superpositioning at the beginning means that every outcome lay as a potential, totally superimposed upon each other, like layers on a cake - an infinite amount of them. No. The number would be large (if we grant your first premise) but necessarily finite (unless the Universe itself is infinite). Quote: And so all this potential i speak of was resident somehow before the big bang came into existence. No. You can't do that. When you're speaking of the creation of the Universe, "potential", "resident", and "before" are terms without referents, completely meaningless. Quote: We cannot be meaning however that there is some time associated to the potential that existed, because time itself had not even begun as remained a dorment mesh of virtual reality itself. It's not a "dorment mesh" of anything. It does not exist. Quote: The appearance of matter and energy in the universe implied to the simultaneous existence of the universe. Well, the other way 'round, really. Quote: What caused the existence to appear would then seem to be some statistical change in this field which describes the entire state vector possibilities of the universe. Nope. The field is the Universe. The Universe is the field. Quote: What triggered such an audacious act? Fluke again perhaps? The question is not meaningful. Quote: This potnetial sea still exists with us today, hidden within the universe existing in an ethereal virtual state. No. Quote: This density of energy covers every corner of the universe, and is called the zero-point field. No. Quote: Somehow this field, having all the properties necessery to create reality as we know it today, give birth to every peice of matter in the universe. No. Quote: In fact, every entity or notion or concept ultimately arises from this potential sea. No. Quote: The BEST way to imagine this potentia before any resolution in the sudden appearance of time and space is to understand that the potential ingredients did not scope over any real dimesions, it did not take up any space or time to have this potential stuff, not did it exist in a void or any vacuum. No. Quote: It's completely ellusive nature before the appearance of big bang makes it one of the most difficult concepts to believe. The existence of virtual particles has been experimentally verified. However, you are talking nonsense. Quote: How can something that doesn't really exist, still give rise to something which does? It does, and it didn't. [snipped the rest]
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

7th September 2009, 02:29 AM	#26
PingOfPong Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 421	In my classes, physics was presented to me somewhat like this: 1) An introductory discussion about a topic. 2) Some math definitions and derivations. 3) Discussion of the math results obtained. 4) Discussion of any notable experiments that had results which were predicted by the math. In other words, evidence. 5) Sample problems that demonstrate the math and logic of what we had learned. Singularitarian, you're post is incomprehensible to me in addition to being very long and full of grammatical errors. If you really want to share your ideas with anyone then you need to seriously consider how most people discuss, learn, and teach physics. If you can't relate your idea to anyone then what's the point?

7th September 2009, 06:00 AM	#28
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	I have so much to say but so little time. Also - anyone mentioning grammatical errors again are going to be ignored. I'm sick of that being used as an excuse to discredit.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

7th September 2009, 08:18 AM	#29
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	Originally Posted by Hokulele There is a reason QM cannot be used to describe t=0. Well of course. The quantity is just about as accessible as \psi\|H>. It has a zero quantity for time, meaning this is the ''time'' before time. This is where language really fails physics.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

7th September 2009, 08:28 AM	#30
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	Originally Posted by PingOfPong In my classes, physics was presented to me somewhat like this: 1) An introductory discussion about a topic. 2) Some math definitions and derivations. 3) Discussion of the math results obtained. 4) Discussion of any notable experiments that had results which were predicted by the math. In other words, evidence. 5) Sample problems that demonstrate the math and logic of what we had learned. Singularitarian, you're post is incomprehensible to me in addition to being very long and full of grammatical errors. If you really want to share your ideas with anyone then you need to seriously consider how most people discuss, learn, and teach physics. If you can't relate your idea to anyone then what's the point? 1) I gave what can be defined as an abstract in a new ''easier to understand post'' Please look for it. 2) - Done the derivations too. 3)I have also discussed my interpretation of the math. For instance i defined a new geometry. In the ''master equation'' of my theory $v^2h(c/G)=E^2/c^2 - p^2$ was interpreted to assume that the fundemental parameters given on the left hand side is showing the geometry how to configurate. On the other hand, the geometry is telling these fundemental constants how to act together. 4) I sampled one problem, that is that my theory would need to proove that gravitational mass actually decreases by very small quantities related to the charge $(-\phi_(\mu))$ is a gravitationally-weaker field. The reason why are because of the following propositions, made i feel through logic and mathematical logic at that. I refer you very quickly to the matrix formulation which showed how its possible to have to couplings with a magnitude strong enough to generate mass, components all intrinsically related to the gravitational potential field $\Phi$ . So, the shift would be small $\delta$ , but adiquate to answer for how gravitational charge coupling to a gravitational field for any moving particle has a langrange density formed as the production of the gravitational mass itself. In effect, the gravitational charge is mass, and can only be caused when moving through a field. so... I think you've been unfair and disingeneous towards your forensic analysis of the work, if you even bothered using any imagination to help yourself understand.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	Last edited by Singularitarian; 7th September 2009 at 08:29 AM.

7th September 2009, 08:31 AM	#31
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008	Originally Posted by PixyMisa This is only true of certain interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. If you take the view that wave function collapse is stochastic (which appears to be consistent with our observations) then your premise is simply untrue. No. The number would be large (if we grant your first premise) but necessarily finite (unless the Universe itself is infinite). No. You can't do that. When you're speaking of the creation of the Universe, "potential", "resident", and "before" are terms without referents, completely meaningless. It's not a "dorment mesh" of anything. It does not exist. Well, the other way 'round, really. Nope. The field is the Universe. The Universe is the field. The question is not meaningful. No. No. No. No. No. The existence of virtual particles has been experimentally verified. However, you are talking nonsense. It does, and it didn't. [snipped the rest] ''No'' to nearly every sentence is worthy of being considered troll behaviour. You've not even provided any reasons why you object so heavily. I am developing a really sensistive psychological oppinion of some peoples actions round here, and it's... to say the least, upsetting. I almost feel sorry for this rebelious age.
Singularitarian Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,008

7th September 2009, 08:43 AM	#32
Evilgiraffe Catalytic Ungulate Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: London-ish Posts: 348	Originally Posted by Singularitarian Well of course. The quantity is just about as accessible as \psi\|H>. Is the bolded section supposed to be bra-ket notation? If so, how come you have the wavefunction acting on the Hamiltonian? This is strange physics indeed.
	__________________ Chemistry is a trade for those without enough imagination to be physicists - Arthur C Clarke

7th September 2009, 08:45 AM	#33
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 8,087	Originally Posted by Singularitarian ''No'' to nearly every sentence is worthy of being considered troll behaviour. You've not even provided any reasons why you object so heavily. Wrong. All of the sentences to which I replied "no" are false because they depend on premises that were shown to be false or unsupported earlier. ETA: Actually, some of them are just plain wrong of their own accord. Quote: I am developing a really sensistive psychological oppinion of some peoples actions round here, and it's... to say the least, upsetting. I almost feel sorry for this rebelious age. That's your problem. You're still wrong.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO Last edited by PixyMisa; 7th September 2009 at 08:47 AM.

7th September 2009, 08:59 AM	#34
wollery Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: City of Eternal Spring Posts: 8,623	Originally Posted by Singularitarian I have so much to say but so little time. Also - anyone mentioning grammatical errors again are going to be ignored. I'm sick of that being used as an excuse to discredit. People aren't using your poor grammar to discredit you, they're pointing out that it makes it almost impossible to read and understand your posts, which are difficult enough because of their length. This makes people less inclined to read your posts, so your intended message gets lost. If you have something that you believe is important to tell people then take the time and effort to say it clearly and understandably, otherwise you'll just be ignored.
	__________________ "You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad "Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin

7th September 2009, 09:50 AM	#35
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 10,322	Originally Posted by Singularitarian I'm sick of that being used as an excuse to discredit. The grammar is not used to discredit you, it's simply pointed out that in addition to making no sense scientifically, your posts rarely make sense from a linguistic point of view either. If you want people to take you at all seriously, you really need to sort out at least one of those two areas.
	__________________ This space not left unintentionally blank.

7th September 2009, 10:07 AM	#36
sol invictus Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Nova Roma Posts: 5,153	Originally Posted by Singularitarian (1) - ''Primal'' means ''beinning'' or even better expressed as a ''system which was initial''. Do you deny that the first ''system which was initial'' was not indeed space and including the primal form of time itself? If time did not initiate as the same thing as space, then how can you differentiate over systems which are time-dependant? I'm sorry, but I still don't understand your questions. Quote: (2) - No. Time can exist in a static frozen state before any initial expansion. Read up on Ekpyrotic Theory. I see no connection between that and your previous question, nor is that itself a question, so again I can't respond. Quote: (3) - I think you can eat your own words. You aren't a scientist - nor do you understand physics. You are at best, High School Level. Whatever you say.

7th September 2009, 10:12 AM	#37
edd Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 533	Sol, which school do you go to? I will have to send my kids there.
edd Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 533	__________________ When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz