The Infinite Time

[Clarksist]

I've been thinking (oh know!) about infinity. And I have come up with an interesting hypothesis.

Infinity is solid. Meaning, in infinity we are all part of it. And time is the only thing we can realize is truly infinite, along with the universe.

So the two truly infinites are the universe and time.

Perhaps that means, that interconnecting the two is possible, in a way, time travel is possible. By going back in time, you are only going to another instance of the universe. Maybe, just maybe, you can change time without a paradox, by arriving back in an instance of which your change in the past is represented.

I actually started this after smoking marijuana, but I remember it clearly. The idea started by thinking of all the conditions and how exponential they are, and yet really not because the variants of everything, every action, every force, EVERYTHING has an infinite variable count.

So I imagined everything woven together and that if you pull away from the infinity you get a woven fabric that is (you guessed it) infinite. So infinity is in a way, a solid.

That or I just smoked good bud. But when I sobered the next day I thought more on it, and today I related it to time travel. Please respond, but don't leave something like "You were stoned!" just leave a sincere idea of my hypothesis.

[h&s]

So the two truly infinites are the universe and time.
But apparently before the Big Bang neither of these things existed.
Also time is relative to speed, making time different. If you were traveling close to the speed of light you would hardly age, whereas if you stayed on Earth you would.


Perhaps that means, that interconnecting the two is possible, in a way, time travel is possible.
I know that time travel is possible within Black Holes, but as you die, I'm doubtful it will ever be of any use.
Also physicists has recently come out with a theory that if you could travel back in time you would not be able to change anything (makes sense I suppose), and we already know (from Einstein) that time travel to the future is not possible.

[Decolonize The Left]

Firstly I'd like to say that sounds like an awesome trip you had.

Onto important things. I'd like some clarification on traveling at the speed of light and how you wouldn't age. Theoretically, let's say you brought a watch with you on this ship. Does that mean that watch would tell time at a slower rate then it would on Earth?

-- August

[KC]

The universe hasn't existed forever. It was created somehow. I think you should say matter/energy and time have existed forever (i.e. there was matter/energy and time before the big bang).

[bed_of_nails]

The universe will probably not be around forever. One of the more prominent theories on universal creation/destruction is that the Universe will eventually begin collapsing eventually.

[KC]

But matter and energy will still be around, regardless of the universe. I guess I'm saying that the universe isn't "everything".

[bed_of_nails]

If everything is encompassed in the universe and the universe is destroyed, what happens to the things inside?

[h&s]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 03:36 AM
Firstly I'd like to say that sounds like an awesome trip you had.

Onto important things. I'd like some clarification on traveling at the speed of light and how you wouldn't age. Theoretically, let's say you brought a watch with you on this ship. Does that mean that watch would tell time at a slower rate then it would on Earth?

-- August
Realisticly yes.
The effect can also be seen (on a much smaller scale) by carrying extremley accurate atomic clocks on high speed jets. Once these clocks have been travelling at a different speed to what they do on earth for a while, they will be about a second out. Atomic clocks are meant to be accurate to the second over periods of hundreds of years.
I've no idea why this is though... :unsure:

[KC]

Radiation. A highly radioactive material - ANY material - radioactively decays at a constant rate no matter what; temperature, pressure, etc... don't affect it. That is what atomic clocks are built off of; at least I thought so.

[Clarksist]

If everything is encompassed in the universe and the universe is destroyed, what happens to the things inside?


How would the universe be destroyed though? There will always be empty space, and thus, the universe.


Firstly I'd like to say that sounds like an awesome trip you had.


Defin-fucking-ately.

[anomaly]

So Lazar, if the universe isn't 'everything', there must be more than one universe, no? Is this what you are saying? Or do we have what is referred to as an 'oscillating universe' where the 'big crunch' of a past universe created this universe? There are, however, some problems with that idea (they're described in a link I'll post). There is also an idea that matter, space and time were created from the big bang, but the universe will not stop expanding. There are also problems with this idea.

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~s...ative/entropy/

^pretty interesting dicussion on entropy and its relation to the universe and its beginnings

[Latifa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 12:35 AM

If everything is encompassed in the universe and the universe is destroyed, what happens to the things inside?


How would the universe be destroyed though? There will always be empty space, and thus, the universe.
How can the matter that makes up the universe be destroyed? If anything the universe could be compacted to the size of a sub-atomic particle as it once was.

That makes me think. Unusual for me to think at 11pm. :lol:

[Led Zeppelin]

So Lazar, if the universe isn't 'everything', there must be more than one universe, no? Is this what you are saying?

I don't care if "Lazar" is saying that or not, there is a theory which says that there are many other "universes".

[h&s]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 05:27 PM
Radiation. A highly radioactive material - ANY material - radioactively decays at a constant rate no matter what; temperature, pressure, etc... don't affect it. That is what atomic clocks are built off of; at least I thought so.
I meant the difference in time. :)
I should have written the post differently.

[which doctor]

There is an INFINITE number of universes out there. Some of them parallel to our own. Travel between the universes is all but impossible except for wormholes and the such.

[Led Zeppelin]

There is an INFINITE number of universes out there. Some of them parallel to our own. Travel between the universes is all but impossible except for wormholes and the such.

You are saying this as if it is a proven fact, do you have evidence for this claim?

[Clarksist]

There is an INFINITE number of universes out there. Some of them parallel to our own. Travel between the universes is all but impossible except for wormholes and the such.


Then why call them universes?

The uniserve is the all encompassing space of... EVERYTHING.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 12 2005, 09:19 AM

There is an INFINITE number of universes out there. Some of them parallel to our own. Travel between the universes is all but impossible except for wormholes and the such.

You are saying this as if it is a proven fact, do you have evidence for this claim?
Well, It is just a theory just like the Theory of Gravity but here's a few things to support what I think:

The Law of Infinite Universes states that each person sees his universe or world a different way; therefore, no two people have identical views of the world. All people do not receive the same information or data; if they do, they view it differently, thus making for an endless number of universes.

Read the fourth paragraph! (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/5mysteries_universes_020205-1.html)

More evidence! (http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/white/papers/ftmu.pdf)

Parallel universes can get confusing! (http://slate.msn.com/id/2087206/)


Take the problem of counterfactuals. What does it mean to say, "If JFK hadn't gone to Dallas, the Vietnam War would have ended earlier"? According to Lewis, the counterfactual statement is true only if there is an alternative universe in which JFK didn't go to Dallas and the Vietnam War did end earlier.

These parallel universes are making all possible choices and playing about an infinite number of scenarios.



If the choices we make in our everyday lives seem a little absurd from the viewpoint of a single vast and eternal universe, then, from the viewpoint of an infinite ensemble of universes containing infinite copies of ourselves, all making every possible choice, they are absolutely absurd.


giving rise to an eternal network of universes tied together by impassable "wormholes."

Travel is all but impossible between these universes.


The idea is a bit like that of monkeys in front of typewriters eventually typing out all of Shakespeare

It's true. Sooner or later this monkey will put out a copy of Macbeth.

Randomness is everywhere!

[Led Zeppelin]

Well, It is just a theory just like the Theory of Gravity

Wrong, the theory of gravity can be proven, the other one can't.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 13 2005, 08:05 AM

Well, It is just a theory just like the Theory of Gravity

Wrong, the theory of gravity can be proven, the other one can't.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that gravity was still just a theory.









Maybe I'm wrong....It wouldn't be the first time.

[Led Zeppelin]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that gravity was still just a theory.


Go on top of something and jump, see what happens.

[OleMarxco]

What a load of bullshit. How can anyone say, "OHOHOHOH GRAVITY IS JUST A THEORY STILL BLAH-BLAH". So since it's just a theory, perhaps we have to prove it before we can jump, unless we go bangin' our head in the moon? ;)

I don't give a shit about that, if you stop thinkin' about that it was a theory about it in science once and it had to be prooved and all of that tiring process, LOOK PRACTICALLY AT IT. What the FUCK is holdin' us down!? EH!? EH!? Oh, it can't be GRAVITY, it's NOT there! Oh yeah, nothing's there, and if we demand to call it Gravity, heaven forbid! :P

As for infinity, I can harshly believe in time never stoppin', but how the hell can we know, who are born in mid-stream of a time, where our stories start here and end there? I can believe there's no end to time, itself, but material and living conditions might end long before. But that time had never a beginning and was infinitively always there...now that's a mindfucker, allright :rolleyes:
Who created Time? God!? God outside of Time!? ARGGH! Paradoxial.....

[anomaly]

With the general theory of relativity, talking of time and space outside this universe becomes meaningless. So I don't quite know how paradoxical it is to think of God creating time (since time is a dimension of this universe, so if God created the universe, God created time...also St. Augustine explained that speaking of God within the confines of time just doesn't make any sense, since he assumed god created the universe and thus time). Perhaps this is getting a bit too philosophical.

Does anyone buy into the theory of 'many universes' at all? It seems a bit more like science fiction than science to me.

[Quantum Flea]

Hmm, I need to clarify a couple of things:


If you were traveling close to the speed of light you would hardly age, whereas if you stayed on Earth you would.

No you don't age slower, you just appear to age slower to someone who is in a different frame of reference.

Thats the whole point of special relativity: you can't tell that you are moving close to the speed of light unless you look outside and get a reference point.

In special relativity we see the phenomenon of length contraction and time dilation. These are spacetime geometrical effects only. If you are on earth and your friend is on a spaceship travelling at a considerable fraction of the speed of light you will view his time to slow down and his length to contract. If he were to look back at you he would make the same observation about your time and length. But neither of you feel a length contraction or a time dilation within your own reference frame.

And don't even get me started on the twin paradox. Its not a paradox, its a simply solved riddle that teachers tell school children to confuse them just a little bit longer.


The universe hasn't existed forever. It was created somehow. I think you should say matter/energy and time have existed forever (i.e. there was matter/energy and time before the big bang).

Well the universe has existed forever, because without the universe there is no time. For that matter there is no matter or energy either.


The universe will probably not be around forever. One of the more prominent theories on universal creation/destruction is that the Universe will eventually begin collapsing eventually.

No one believes that anymore. The universe will die a long, slow heat death as all the matter and energy dissipate.


There is an INFINITE number of universes out there. Some of them parallel to our own.

Thats a bullshit fairy tale. Scientists who talk about that sort of thing really should know better. Its like Stephen Hawking and Paul Davies telling me that physics can tell us about the "Mind of God". They should know better.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that gravity was still just a theory.

You're very wrong. Unless of course you are floating around your keyboard right now. If thats the case then let me know.


Radiation. A highly radioactive material - ANY material - radioactively decays at a constant rate no matter what; temperature, pressure, etc... don't affect it. That is what atomic clocks are built off of; at least I thought so.

Well thats another point about time dilation in special relativity. If someone is travelling relative to me at some considerable speed then their time will appear to move more slowly to me. That include all clocks - mechanical and radioactive. But it doesn't stop there. This includes all things that are a function of time: biological processes, chemical reactions, you name it. I all appears to occur at a slower rate.

Of course, the guy who is travelling in that reference frame just won't notice anything at all. Thats the point of special relativity - no one can tell who is standing still or who is travelling with constant velocity. All you can measure is relative speed.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Quantum [email protected] 14 2005, 07:15 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that gravity was still just a theory.

You're very wrong. Unless of course you are floating around your keyboard right now. If thats the case then let me know.


I am not saying that I don't believe in the existence of gravity, but I am saying the theory of gravity has several flaws. As far as I know there is NO Law of Gravity

PROOF (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm)

If anyone admits that they were wrong than i will not make fun of you. :lol:

[Quantum Flea]

You should be careful when you provide a link or quote a source as "proof". In this case the link is to some creationist fool. Creationists will say anything to attack science.


Now to consult your "proof":




Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.


The moon does go around the sun. It does so in an eccentic way. The motion of the moon as it travels around the sun is what is known as 'epicycles'. It travels in smaller circles around the earth as it travels around the sun.

Ok, next:


The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.

This is extraordinarily sloppy thinking. The moon's gravity does not cause a bulge "underneath it", per se.

When one body, say the moon, orbits another body, say the earth, there is a tidal force which drags out not only the small patch of ground beneath it, but it actually compresses the entire earth along the axis which is perpendicular to the radius of the orbit.

What this means is that the earth is squashed (ever so slightly) into an egg-like shape. So there are two bulges: one nearly underneath the moon and another exactly opposite on the other side of the earth.

The result of this? Two tides per lunar day.



For example, astronomers, who seem to have a fetish for gravity, tell us that the moon rotates on its axis but at the same time it always presents the same face to the earth. This is patently absurd.

This statement is unsupported. He is scraping the bottom of the barrel here kids.

The period of rotation of the moon actually coincides with the period of its orbit. This is also an effect which is due to tidal forces. Its called tidal coupling. Look it up if you don't believe me.



Moreover, if gravity were working on the early earth, then earth would have been bombarded out of existence by falling asteroids, meteors, comets, and other space junk.

Have you ever seen a shooting star? I have. What the fuck do you think that is? Its space junk burning up.

In fact, the earth has been pumelled by space debris.

Further more, the earth is actually a coallesced collection of space debris. It finished combining together about 4.5 billion years ago.




Furthermore, gravity theory suggests that the planets have been moving in orderly orbits for millions and millions of years, which wholly contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Since everything in the Universe tends to disorder according to the 2nd Law, orderly orbits are impossible.

This is, quite simply, a fucking lie. The second law of thermodynamics states:


It is impossible to obtain a process that, operating in cycle, produces no other effect than the subtraction of a positive amount of heat from a reservoir and the production of an equal amount of work.

So you can see that there is no connection here. The planets are not converting solar energy into the mechanical motion of their orbits.

The planets continue in their orbitary motions. They do slow down, but because of their huge masses and the relativly small amount of friction they have to contend with in a vacuum, it takes a hell of a long time. Much longer than the age of the solar system.


There are numerous alternative theories that should be taught on an equal basis. For example, the observed behavior of the earth revolving around the sun can be perfectly explained if the sun has a net positive charge and the planets have a net negative charge, since opposite charges attract and the force is an inverse-square law, exactly as the increasingly discredited Theory of Gravity.

Yes. Then go measure the charge and bring me back the evidence. Until then, this guy should stop making up bullshit.

If the earth had a net charge capable of producing the same force as gravity it would seriously fuck with all communications on earth, all electronic equipment, etc.



The US Patent Office has never issued a patent for anti-gravity. Why is this? According to natural law and homeopathy, everything exists in opposites: good-evil; grace-sin; positive charges-negative charges; north poles-south poles; good vibes-bad vibes; etc. We know there are anti-evolutionists, so why not anti-gravitationalists?

Well homeopathy is a lie. That means that its probably not good to base your argument on it.

There may be such a thing as anti-gravity. And scientists will continue to use their best methods to find things like it. But one thing no sane scientist wil ever do is claim that "God did it".

Ugh, I've had enough of this guy's site. If you want me to do the rest, say so, and I'll come back and do it.

I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that creationists will say just about anything to get there way. They prey upon the fact that a lot of the people wo whom they preach are not well versed in science. But as I have shown here, a little reading, a little Googling, etc will often show that there are scientific explanations to these kinds of "gaps". And these explanations have often been around a while.

Please don't claim to me that a creationist has a fair challenge to science without doing all of your reading first.

People like creationists, who inisist that they are right, based on faith, are the enemies of the revolution and of progressive thought. Don't let them get to you.

I open challenges to any of the arguments I have suggested here. If you want more detail, then I will try to find the time to flesh them out for you all.

[which doctor]

Let's make a few things clear...

I do believe in gravity.

I posted the link to stress the point that gravity is still a theory. (a theory I generally believe in)

I was obviously a little misunderstood.


And a question that Quantum Flea might be able to ask: We obviously feel the Sun's gravitational pull because we do orbit around it, but what stops the Earth from crashing right into the sun? Is it the distance between us and the sun that keeps us in orbit and not in the sun?

I've been wondering that for a while.

[Quantum Flea]

And a question that Quantum Flea might be able to ask: We obviously feel the Sun's gravitational pull because we do orbit around it, but what stops the Earth from crashing right into the sun? Is it the distance between us and the sun that keeps us in orbit and not in the sun?

Thats a good question. The answer all has to do with circular motion, and newton's first law. It would probably be easier for me to answe with a picture, but i'll give it a shot in text first.

You know when you are in a car and the car turns a bend your body will tend to get pushed towards the side of the car which is on the outside of the bend? Thats due to your body's inertia. The inertia of an object is like its tendency to keep going in a straight line unless it is pushed by a force. In this case, the force that opposes your body's inertia is the force of the car pushing against you through the seat, through the seatbelt and even through your contact with the wall of the car.

In the case of a planet, the planet would like to move in a straight line. Instead of a car wall or seatbelt, it is the force of gravity between the sun and the planet which keeps the planet turning. This happens continually, so we get to see circular motion.

It's like the planet is falling towards the sun. But in the time it takes to fall a little way, it has also moved past the sun a little way. So if the planet is moving fast enough in the direction tangent to it's circular path it will orbit. The faster it moves the more elliptical it becomes (instead of being a circle). If the speed is greater than a certain cut-off speed (called the 'escape velocity') then it will fly off out of orbit. If the planet travels too slowly, it will crash into the sun.

So the short answer is that the planets are moving fast enough to avoid crashing into the sun.

If you would like more then let me know how much maths you have done and I can try to draw pictures and equations, etc.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Fist of Blood+Aug 13 2005, 08:53 AM--> (Fist of Blood @ Aug 13 2005, 08:53 AM)
Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 13 2005, 08:05 AM

Well, It is just a theory just like the Theory of Gravity

Wrong, the theory of gravity can be proven, the other one can't.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that gravity was still just a theory.[/b]

Gravity
Physics.

1. The natural force of attraction exerted by a celestial body, such as Earth, upon objects at or near its surface, tending to draw them toward the center of the body.
2. The natural force of attraction between any two massive bodies, which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Gravity is a force; evolution is a theory.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Evolution is both fact and theory. It is a fact because it is an undeniable (Except by idiots and the ignorant) naturally occurring phenomenon, and a theory because we do not completely understand the processess involved.

Gravity is the same.

I hope nobody invokes any of the Anthropic principles. It's rather like a puddle being amazed at how well the depression in the ground fits it.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 06:59 AM
Evolution is both fact and theory. It is a fact because it is an undeniable (Except by idiots and the ignorant) naturally occurring phenomenon, and a theory because we do not completely understand the processess involved.
Well; evolution on a small scale has been proven. People have seen changes in animals over time with breeding; pigs for example and dogs.
As for the extension into the theory of life itself developing; that is but a theory.


Gravity is the same.

How so? Gravity is one of the four forces (energy) we know of. It is a fact that gravity has been in effect and I am under the impression that gravity is the effect; proving existence. Though gravity does have theories about it, I don't think they are intrinsic to gravity.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well; evolution on a small scale has been proven. People have seen changes in animals over time with breeding; pigs for example and dogs.

And you're saying evolution on the large scale hasn't been proven?


As for the extension into the theory of life itself developing; that is but a theory.

Evolutionary theory doesn't explain the origin of life, because it wasn't meant to, only how it developed. We know far less about the actual origin of life, but I'd bet money that the origin of life is naturalistic.


How so? Gravity is one of the four forces (energy) we know of. It is a fact that gravity has been in effect and I am under the impression that gravity is the effect; proving existence. Though gravity does have theories about it, I don't think they are intrinsic to gravity.

Sure, we know the effects of gravity, it's easily measured. However, the mechanism that produes this effect is what is in dispute. With evolution scientists are fairly certain what the mechanism is, but they differ over details* - I'm saying that the theories of both gravity and evolution are facts as well in that their effects can be measured, but the mechanisms and/or details are what is uncertain.

[h&s]

No you don't age slower, you just appear to age slower to someone who is in a different frame of reference.

Thats the whole point of special relativity: you can't tell that you are moving close to the speed of light unless you look outside and get a reference point.
Thats what I meant.

[amos]

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Mainstream scientists consider it a fact that evolution occurred; how it occurred is still considered a theory. Stephen J. Gould describes this difference best:

"In the American vernacular, 'theory' often means 'imperfect fact' -- part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is 'only' a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): 'Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science -- that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was.'

"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

"Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent'. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

from here. (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-evolutiontheory.htm)

Try sites like The Panda's Thumb (http://www.pandasthumb.org/) or stranger fruit (http://darwin.bc.asu.edu/blog/) for details of the ongoing fight against peddlars of creationist bollocks.

Cheers
Amos

[amos]

This (http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2) and this (http://www.idrewthis.org/2005/gravity.html) also serve to illustrate my point.

Cheers
Amos