machapungo

Further notions regarding the mechanism of an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction of the universe: A point to keep in mind while considering this speculation is that matter itself from a volume perspective is mostly space and this means that space and matter have no problem intermingling at all scales of size.

Let's consider the case where during expansion all matter gets consumed by black holes and the black holes evaporate to leave only a finite amount of space surrounded by the infinite void of nothing. Here, let's assert that electromagnetic energy cannot pass the space void boundary. Let's also assert that space's density of energy also has gravity. This gravity of space would provide a cohesiveness to allow all of finite space, to exist as a bubble surrounded by the void and to remain contiguous and not become somehow mixed and infinitely diluted by the void. However, before all of the more concentrated forms of energy ultimately transform into space their gravity and the gravity of space were mutually pulling on each other. But since the gravity of space is very weak, space becomes stretched to it's limit of minimal density.

This affect of stretching would be maintained as long as any matter or black hole exists. However, once they themselves become space there is no force to stretch space to its point of minimal density and when this situation is reached the gravity of space begins to cause it to collapse upon itself and that collapse causes the gravity of space to continuously increase to provide a positive reinforcing feedback to the process.

This process requires the attractive force of black hole gravity pulling on space gravity to be not only insufficient to somehow overcome the evaporation of a black hole into space BUT could actually be the cause of a black hole evaporating and becoming space. This could be viewed as a tug of war in which the limit of the minimal density of space actually sucks energy out of the black hole. A kind of cosmic jujitsu.

As the process of collapse proceeds the temperature of space continues to increase. Eventually, is gets so hot that the sub atomic particles which at cooler temperatures seem to pop into and out of existence begin to fuse.

I speculate that once this collapse achieves a certain critical magnitude of gravity further collapse builds to fantastic superluminal speeds and super temperatures causing all forms of matter to fuse and ever more powerful black holes to form and merge with phenomenal inward momentum and speed until a big bang occurs. Thereafter, everything once again expands and cools. Yes, this story is not backed up by evidence. It does, I think, contain a rather cohesive chain of events even though they are fetched from imagination. Regards

r

 

 

Not everything is a form of energy. Space is not energy (it may contain energy, though). Space is just the distance between things. Time is also another measure of the distance between things. In order to meet someone you need to specify both a location (3 dimensions) and a time (the 4th dimension).

 

The geometry of both space and time are changed by the presence of mass or energy. That is what causes the effect we perceive as gravity (which is mainly due to the curvature of the time dimension).

 

p.s. Sorry but I hit the "down vote" button when aiming for the Quote button. Maybe someone else will kindly remove that negative vote....

EDIT: Thank you!

Hello Strange,

You say "space is not energy but it MAY contain energy". I do not think this point of view is supported by the legitimate physics community. You speak of space and time as "just being a measure of the distance between things". All measurements are a product of the mind. Measurements are not a physical thing. The universe, itself, can exist just fine without our measurements. Your reference to meeting some one at a specific time and place as if these were properties of the universe. They are not. They are concepts of the human mind.

You are falling into the trap of mixing the attributes of the observer with the observed. You speak of geometry. Again, geometry is a product of the mind that is intended to help us understand the physical universe but should not be confused with the actual physical universe. All of our understandings are abstractions of physical reality.

All of our input is a function of our five senses. All of our senses involve a transformation of the data via different means of transmission and their inherent delays. Consequently, all data that enters the mind is old and does not represent the EXACT state of the current (NOW) of the universe which is in the constant flux of the continuum of motion at many levels of existence. The data input to the mind suffers additional delays to reach our consciousness and make it's way through our analysis. What this means is that we have no conscious DIRECT CONTACT with the reality of the constantly changing universe. We have no direct mental contact with the NOW, In effect, all of our thoughts are based on a past state of the entire universe, or a portion thereof, that has changed, at least in some small way at the moment we finally perceive it.

You did not address my assertion that time is not a physical reality. You quote an idea that gravity is mainly due to the curvature on the time dimension as if it were a physical thing. There is no apparatus or test that has ever shown that time is a physical reality. All we have are our brains and our clocks that are either natural in origin or of one human design or another. All they do is measure motion of something else relative to their own motion. Let's examine the experiment that takes two identical and synchronized atomic clocks and puts one on on an airplane and leaves the other on the surface of the planet. After the plane takes a trip they determine that the two clocks offer slightly different readings of the time that has passed since the beginning of the test. All this really shows, is that the motion of the entire clock affects the physics of the components of the clock and not the passage of some mythical non physical time. Likewise, with the affect of gravity on the clock based passage of time. The people that accept that these tests as showing something about time are chasing the myth that time is somehow physical. Motion is real and motion at one level can affect motion at another just as gravity, which is real, can also affect motion. They need to focus on motion itself, and yes their main tools in this endeavor is the clock and their brains. Regards.

Gr says that matter warps space/time. We have proof that matter warps time but do we have proof that matter warps space?

How can matter warp time if time is not a physical part of the universe. Everything that exists is a form of energy, even space.

Where is the evidence that time is energy? Time, IMO, is just a mental invention to measure and explain motion by using relative motion.

I'm very pleased to find a "speculations" category where my unfounded ideas can be expressed. Thank you scienceforums!!

Regarding zero point energy and vacuum space being a zero point field. In other words, what that means is that it is the most diluted form of energy that can exist. Fine.

Let us also accept that energy can be neither created or destroyed, it can only change forms. So, space is one of those forms.

Therefore, one could assert that the expansion of our universe is nothing more than our observation of the conversion of some form of denser non space energy into space.

Things that are referred to as "dark" are really "invisible" as is space and therefore why not simply assert that dark energy and space are one and the same?

That assertion leaves us with the task of explaining how denser forms of energy could be transformed into space.

I feel comfortable in speculating that everything in the universe is a form of energy and is the total sum of physical reality.

Now, let's address the idea of whether the universe is finite or infinite.

The notion that the universe is infinite requires that it is possible to have a never ending blob of energy in one form or another. If one asserts this notion then one is simultaneously asserting that there is nothing else other than energy and that volume of energy has no boundary. I find this idea difficult to swallow.

The other possibility is that the universe is finite but tremendously large. If it is finite then it is natural to ask about what is beyond the bounds of the universe. Then, I think, it is logical to say that there is "nothing" beyond the universe where nothing means there is a total lack of energy. Let's call this the void. But then, if one asks what is beyond the void what could a reasonable answer be? I think the reasonable answer is nothing. In other words the void is infinite,

A limitless amount of nothing strikes me as much more reasonable than a limitless amount of something. Furthermore, from a philosophical perspective it makes sense. Nothing and something define each other and definitions are a good thing from the point of view of understanding.

So, here we have a universe that is currently expanding because of conversions of denser energy into space with "nothing" to impede it.

We currently think that the current expansion of the universe has taken about 13.8 billion of our puny earth years, so far.

It is natural for us to ask if the universe had changes before the beginning of this expansion (big bang).

It is also natural for us to ask if there will be an end to this expansion. I have read speculations that eventually the black holes in the universe will consume all conventional matter and that they will eventually evaporate and leave a universe that consists of nothing but space. I find that idea to be a reasonable speculation. If we accept that notion then what, if anything, happens to the universe consisting of nothing but space? Does it make sense that the universe will then exist unchanged thereafter? If so, that means that somehow we were lucky enough to get a ticket on the one and only one way trip into the oblivion of a blob of space bounded by nothing. I find this to be a hard to swallow idea.

My experience with the universe is that it has a tendency to change. Therefore, that naturally leads me to ask how can the universe get from a form where it is composed of all space to a form where it can, once again, explode with a big bang and begin a never ending cycle of expansion and contraction. This, I think, is a puzzle best left in the hands of physicists and astrophysicists.

Regards

A few years ago I wrote a poem on this topic and I called it "Eternal Now" . Some may like it.

Saying the past doesn't exist in the present is like saying that ten feet away doesn't exist where I'm currently standing. It's true by definition,

 

No, I don't think so!

The past is represented in the present by records that have a degree of persistence. Nothing persists forever except the total energy of the universe. The record could be written words, a memory, a fossil, rings in a tree trunk. Even though these records exist in the present, they were initially created by events that are not happening in the current configuration ( the "now") of the universe. The energy of the universe is eternal but it's configuration is not. Past, present, and future are all about configuration but only the universal energy configuration of the now exists in reality. Reality is constantly changing. There is no way to pin it down as it is always different than it was and will become different than it is..

The universal "now" is the configuration of the total energy of the universe but it cannot be statically defined because it is constantly changing via a continuum of motion.

 

I'm not saying there are not separate objects. There can be separate objects without anybody perceiving them. The tree that falls in the woods did make a sound whether anybody heard it or not, in my opinion. I as merely pointing out that in reality, there is no delimiter between one moment and the next unless we create one. We do not have to create separate objects. I do not think that is a created concept, but merely a present moment observation.

 

Ordered events can happen, and this reflects motion, which then refects change. But out mental comparison beteen our memories, what we are seeing right now at any given moment, and our expectation of a future creates this concept called time. By concept, I mean a mental construct. Math is a mental construct. It is almost always a correct one, but numbers are not real, they are a concept that hopes to reflect or represent reality. I know it's kind of weird and it took me a while to grasp this idea, Whether the idea is actually correct or not, it has to be grasped first in order to even attempt to ascertain whether it is correct or not and I found it to be very counter intuitive at first.

 

Someone sees a photograph of a past event. And to them, that is proof that there is a past, and there is a past (in our minds). But that past event happened in the present moment at that time, and was only real when it was happening in the present moment. The remnants of that event exist only in our mind, but they are no longer real and were only real when they happened. Not to say that it is wrong for us to have a concept of the past, but the past can only exist in our mind via our concepts or mental constructs. Nothing can ever exist outside of our minds or mental constructs except things that are actually happening right now in the present. So when we look at a photograph, we make the relationship between that photograpgh and some memory we have or an idea of "past" that we have, and therefore it is a mental construct that creates this idea of past. But the only thing that is actually real and independent of our ideas or mental constructs, is the current physical state of that photography. Maybe it is getting more and more yellow. Maybe it has a tear in it. That's real, and independent of any concepts that we create or connect together. And later on, the state that we saw that photograph in is no longer real, and we store that past reality as an idea or memory but the only place it exists is in the mind because that current state no longer exists, and the present state of it is the only thing that is real or reality and independent of any ideas we create and store in our minds. And reality should be something that exists independent of our ideas or concepts for it.

 

The tree does make a sound even if nobody hears it, but that sound only exists in reality when it happens, and after the sound is finished, it is no longer reality and can only exist in our minds or on a sound recorder, but it does not actually exist in reality independent of our perceptions. And when we play that sound back, the only thing that actually exists is the sound that the recorder is currently playing. We have to create a conncetion in our mind to relate that current sound to a past event, but that event does not exist, only the current event of a recorder making a sound.exists

 

I can't be sure this is correct, I just found it to be a fascinating concept, and it took me a while to grasp because it is so counter intutive to what we have been taught, and yet it is actually so simple and seems to ring true to me,.And often, truth is actually quite simple, and we create complexities. As one author that I read said, sometimes we organized the world with our mental constructs so well, that we can no longer see it.

 

It exists if we create an idea or mental construct of it's existence. But it was only real and independent of our concepts or mental constructs when it was actually happening. And to me, reality is something that exists independent of our mental constructs. It exists on it's own, independent of someone attaching concepts to it, and it can only exist when it is actually happening. So the idea of this concept I am proposing is that the only thing that is actually real or reality is what is actually happening right now, and the rest of it, past and future, exists as mere concepts of the mind. I didn't say that they weren't useful concepts, but they should be treated as what they really are, concepts for reality, but not reality itself. Both the future and the past can only actually exist, independent of our ideas or mental constructs, in the present moment. The past was only real when it was actually happening in the present moment that it happened in. And the future, which is really just a mental expectation that we create, can only come to fruition, and therefore actually exist, in the present moment. The rest of it are mere ideas of ours. Not to say they are necessarily faulty at all, but they are ideas, not reality. So this is where the idea comes from that the only thing that is real is the present moment which goes on and on and on and on.......

 

There is an idea that mytics have. And by mystics, I mean people like Loa Tzu or others, not these fraud, modern day mystics. An example of a real, modern day mystic would be Jiddhu Krishnamurti. Real mytics are kind of like philosophers mixed with spiritual concepts in search of true reality.. They are not people who perform crazy ceremionies and the like, like most people think of when they hear that word. They maintain that if one was fully concentrating on what is actually happening right before them right now, and attaches no ideas of past or future, but instead the mind is 100% focused on what is actually happening, rather than ideas of past and future sharing their focus, then time disappears. Very difficult to grasp because it is very abstract and counter intuitive. AndI don't think that anybody can have their minds 100% in the present moment, it is just an idea, but the idea says that if one could actually do this and keep doing it, they would be living in what is called the "eternal moment". When religions speaking of eternity life, they are using the wrong word. They should be saying everlasting life because that is what they really mean. Everlasting is in time, and is time purduring forever. But it has a beginning and therefore a past and it has a future which never ends. But eternal means timeless no time. Something outside of time itself. We can conceive of something that has no end, but we cannot conceive of something that has no beginning, since everything that exists must have a beginning or prior cause or origin. But eternal is outside of the mind's ability to conceptualize.

 

So while this is all admittedly very weird, I am merely explaining what they mean by the eternal moment, and how they could arrive at this idea or conclusion. I can't say that I necessarily sign on to this, I am actually a very logical and rational person, but I find it to be a very interesting or even fascinating concept that never even occurred to me before I was introduced to it.

About Math. I know that the math says that these ideas I am proposing are wrong. And I do believe that math can't be wrong. Math is just math. But, if the starting point of the math is faulty, the following math will work just fine, because it's just math doing it's thing. But, if the starting assumption or beginning of the equation was wrong right from the start, the math wiill work, but ultimately could lead us to conclusions that aren't really true. And it would not be the math's fault, it would be our usage of it that would be to blame.

 

Or the slower the motion becomes. But I think it is the opposite, and the faster the motion becomes. But I think we are still talking about what is actually motion and time is just a concept that we created to measure that motion.

I agree with every word that admello has just said. It is a weird feeling to encounter someone who says things that exactly describe thoughts and writings that also independently came out of your own mind. Because, of encountering admello's initial posting on this topic I was the one that sent him a personal message asking him to return to the topic. It's not that I want a backer to gang up on other perspectives, One thing it accomplishes is to put the same idea in someone elses words. This can lead to further clarification or crystallization of an idea. Exposing as many facets of an idea as possible to the light of criticism and then attempt to return a light to the criticism is a good mechanism of progress.

I find it interesting that I share a software background with admello and have also read a number of books by J. Krishnamurti. I'm not spiritual and I found disagreement with and contradiction in many things he says. However, he had a way of stimulating my own thoughts and that is also what we are all doing here in this forum. Another word of praise for this forum is that it allows the thoughts of all persons interested in a subject to merge without super strict banning of thought experiments and personal theories. In at least one other website forum the thought police are extremely active and I think that unnecessarily constrains possibilities. But, of course, they have every right to manage their forum as they see fit.

You're making a common crackpot-like mistake of criticising the scientific understanding of something (time), while demonstrating that you don't understand it. Who treats time almost as if it has mass??? What does that even mean? Who treats it as an object with existence besides its measurement?

 

Phrases like "crackpot-like" are not productive to developing mutual understanding. Criticizingscientific understanding is what science does. It's not a religion. When you say "it's measurement" you are implying time is something independent of measurement. What, exactly, is that independent something?

 

 

You're also making a common philosopher mistake of coming up with a way to think about a concept that ignores all of the functionality of the existing definition.

 

On the contrary, I think, admello is focusing on the functionality of time and that functionality is a handy way to measure motion. If you are saying that the functionality of time is to measure time then we have a critter chasing it's tail.

Time is used to measure motion and motion is used to measure time. This can be a confusing potion. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

 

You dismissed the analogy to distance, but time is treated very much like distance in science. It involves the ordering of events, but it is also a metric where the time between events has consistent measurements. So yes, if you remove the "measurement" aspect of time, which is what gives it its definition in science, then you can say what you want about it (it only exists in the present or whatever)

 

"Or whatever" indicates that you have missed the other guy's point. Who said time "only exists in the present? I recall it being said that the present is timeless. If you look at the entire universe at once and don't focus on the pieces (what relativity is all about), where is the time? I don't recall anyone dismissing the anaology to distance. Who?

 

but you must realize that you've ignored everything that is useful about the concept of time in science,

No, that was not done.

 

and replaced it with some vague philosophical thoughts that might be interesting to think about or lead to new ideas, but are not useful like the scientific definition of time is.

I understand why you call it philosophy but I don't recall anything "vague" in the explanations. Exactly, what was vague and needs clarification?

Sure, but everything can act as a recorder of events. The tree remains on the forest floor, as an effect of it falling. There are atoms in a rock that only exist because they were made in a star that exploded. You can say "That star only exists in the past" but its existence is still indicated by the rock's present existence. Now you'll have to define what it means to be "real" in the past.

I think you might say "That star only exists in the past" but I would say "That star only existed in the past but it's energy still exists in the present but in different percentages of form and relative location".

 

 

Since this star, or this sound, no longer exists, can you meaningfully say that whether it happened or not doesn't matter?

No.

 

And if so, what does it mean that the rock, or the memory, is there now,

If the rock or memory is there then that indicates existence in the present.

 

if the events that caused it are dismissed?

That is a personal choice.

 

 

Or if not, in what sense is the past event not real?

 

In the sense that it no longer exists in the present in the same form as it did in the past.

So what makes a planet only spin or rotate if a "thinking entity" needs to understand the motion?

The same as before the entity felt a need to apply the notion of time to aid his understanding of the motion observed. The observers thoughts do not affect the motion because his analysis, using the notion of time, is confined to his brain.

Changing this motion requires an external torque, or else angular momentum is conserved. YES, I agree

What is the source of the torque? NNTA (No Need To Answer because It is not relevant to the issue at hand!)

 

Also, there is NO NEED TO SHOUT. haha!! My apologies. I only mean tto visually separate our text. I also apologize for all bad spelling and typos.

 

..

 

None. I have not claimed that time causes motion. Okay! But are you not asserting that time is physically bound to motion? What are you claiming?

 

It wouldn't. My point, exactly.

If I'm reading it right, it was your claim that time requires a thinking being, not mine. Yes that is my claim, but I'm not claiming that motion requires a thinking being to exist.

 

 

 

I'm not the first, so I'm not inventing anything, but it's based on observation. Some things consistently happen in an order and some things cause other things but not the reverse.

Okay, not first / not inventing and your observation tells you that some natural events will be ordered.and you can see and understand cause. But, nature contains the motion and your head contains the time.

 

In some cases event order can change, but not causal events. If someone lights a fuse on a bomb and then later a bomb blows up, there is no frame where the bomb blows up first.

Nature contains the motion but it does not know or care about cause and effect. You the observer assign the order and the cause and effect relationship and name it an event.

In nature motions happen because motion is a form of energy that came into existence when another form of energy transformed and became the motion.

Energy behaves in ways that are consistent with its nature and the nature of a local energy environment. We can pose questions about these natural motions and offer explanations that make sense to us. As a physicist you call these explanations "laws of nature" but it is you that crafted the law as an abstraction of your observations. The law can be stated in words or mathematical symbols but they are independent of the physical reality of nature. Nature is energy and it does.what is natural for it to do. People used to assign the ways of nature to supernatural gods but now enlightened humans assign the ways of nature to abstract symbols that we have created. We have no direct mental contact with the reality of nature. Our sensors always suffer delay, and so we are always mentally processing abstract records.

 

Trees don't move a whole lot. Time is affected by motion, but not effected by it. Now and then I commit the sin of affect when I mean effect. Sorry! Time is effected by motion only in our brains. Motion being physical effects only the physical. in a real non mental way.

 

I previously said "You are asserting motion measurement and or understanding is a real physical thing apart from an observer..

You replied ,"No, I don't think I am".

Perhaps I have misunderstood your position. You do speak of "time existence" and " time measurement" as "not the same thing". I took your word existence as meaning a real physical thing which would be a form of energy since energy is all that exists in one form or another. If that is your meaning then that is our point of disagreement and I would like to hear your explanation of that position.

 

Regards.

 

Orbits and spins and motion and decay rates are all time dependent. You are equating time measurement with time existence, but they are not the same thing. Ordered events happen, independent of observation. A tree grows and then dies and falls over without anybody watching.

 

BTW, atomic clocks do not depend on the decay of Cesium.

Firist, I must confess my error in saying that atomic clocks made using cesiun are dependend on radioactive decay. Thanks for correcting my error. However, this error is not relative to my opinions about time.

Orbits and spins and motion and decay rates are all time dependent,

ONLY IF A THINKING ENTITY NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THESE MOTIONS.

BY WHAT MECHANISM IS ANY MOTION PHYSICALLY CAUSED BY OR PHYSICALLY DEPENDENT ON YOUR NOTION OF TIME.?

IF THE UNIVERSE HAD NO THINKING CRITTERS HOW WOULD THAT PHYSICALY AFFECT THE PULSE OF A CESIUM ATOM OR THE SPIN OF PLANET EARTH?

YOU ARE INVENTING TIME EXISTENCE OUT OF PURE THOUGHT.

ORDERING IS A THOUGHT PROCESS THAT REQUIRES THE THINKER TO POSESS MEMORY CAPABILITY, OTHERWISE, HE OLNY UNDERSTANDS ONE STATIC VIDEO FRAME (ONE CONFIGURATION OF CONSTANTLY CHANGING ENERGY) AT A TIME AND THAT IS NO UNDERSTANDING AT ALL. ORDERING IS TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON THE OBSERVER AND HIS MOTION RELATIVE TO THE MOTION OF THE OBSERVED AND I THINK YOU WILL AGREE THAT THIS IS ACCEPTED PHYSICS.

YES, NOW YOU GET IT! THE MOTIONS INVOLVED IN GROWING, DYING, AND FALLING OVER ARE INDEPENDENT OF AN OBSERVER AND HIS SEQUENTIALIZATION. MOTION HAPPENS AND YOUR NOTIONS OF TIME HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

YOU ARE ASSERTING MOTION MEASUREMENT AND OR UNDERSTANDING IS A REAL PHYSICAL THING APPART FROM AN OBSERVER

.

IT TAKES A THINKING CRITTER TO MEASURE OR TO UNDERSTAND AND THAT IS WHERE YOU FALL INTO THE TRAP OF MIXING THE OBSERVED WITH THE OBSERVER.

Regards

I agree with "roosh" that time is not a real physical thing. It is a mental construct.

Roosh points out that "how we measure time" is a big clue to it's true nature.

It is always done using one repetitive motion to measure another motion and this is what is called a clock.

Einstein is quoted as saying words to the effect, "Time is what you read on a clock".

I think he was dead serious.

roosh also points out that the memory of a thinking entity is required the unserstand past and future.

It is also required to understand motion, which is the thing that defines time.

The eyes see a thing that is moving and transports via nerve signals to the brain and the brain records these images in the sequence that they occur.

Then the brain processes this old sequence of information information via internal mechanisms that have been embedded in us by evolution.

We automatically sequentialize everything we sense and store the information in memory for processing with ideas that we have learned.

Our ideas about time have come a long way since we posessing a small brain crawled out of some primeval soup.

Now it is time to realize that thinking time is a real physical thing is confusing the observed and the observer.

When we observe motion we automatically understand it to some degree because of how we are mentally constructed.

Then when enough education has taken place we can understand complicated relative motions of multiple things.

We have built ckocks into all of our computers and other motion measuring devices such as oscilloscopes .

Roosh also makes an excellent point when he says " every observer can only ever experience the present moment" and he points out that a real past and a real present

cannot co-exist with a real present. but what is a real "present"? what is the "now" and what is our relationship to it? The now, as we mentally perceive it, is really the recent past that has been processed

eyes, ears, nerve cells, and converted into electrical signals that go to and are saved in our very short term memory. Our conscious brain then processes the encoded information and comes to an understanding. These electro-chemical biological functions do not happen instantaneously. There is a delay. So, you see, we actually mentally exist in the recent past which we call the present because

we can't defy the laws of physics and do any better. Technicaly, we always mentally live in the past and our brains draw all conclusions, develop all thoughts, achieve all understanding based on records (memories) of past events. There are many kinds of records, such as, books, electronic recordings, fossils, sedimentary layers of minerals, etc. From these records of past events we construct a mental life

that uses the shorthand notion of time to deal with events caused by motion. Motion is and was and will be a real physical thing and it is a form of energy.

Here is a little mental exercise:

Imagine our early universe, full of objects in relative motion, and a mythical god snaps her fingers and all thinking entities vanish.

Given this situation would motion still exist?

Of course it would, and this is consistent with all of the motions in our young universe existing before thinking entities arrived on the scene.

However, there is no way to measure the motions without the thinking entity even though there are plenty of repetitive clocks.

Planets are orbiting stars and spinning on an axis and Cesium atoms are decaying at a very constant rate.

However, these natural clocks have no way of being viewed or used as clocks without a thinking entity.

Therefore, time is dependent upon the existence of thinking entities but motion and space are not.

I think it is obvious that anything that is dependent upon the existence of a thinking entity to perceive it, cannot be an independent real physical reality. For example, all gods.

Time is not a physically real thing and a time travel machine will never exist. It;s just a smart ape's mental tool.

Time is a mental construct not a physical reality..

As a mental construct time can only exist in a brain and it is used to measure motion.

As a mental construct, it can have a beginning and an end.

Current physics has time starting at the moment of the big bang because at that moment there is nothing to use as a clock but, of course, there are no thinking entities either.

What we use as a clock is arbitrary and a clock is just something that moves at a relativly consistent speed and repeats at a relatively consistent rate.

We thinking entities should not confuse the observer wih the observed..

Physicists generally agree that the singularity causing the big bang also caused inflation.

I accept that inflation is the creation of space.

I accept that current black holes are also singularities.

I assert that all black holes are currently causing inflation via the creation of space.

I assert that the creation of space is really a transformation of mass into space and that space is a form of energy.

I assert that the "dark energy" spoken of as the reason for the expansion of the universe is really "clear energy" that is commonly called space.

I accept that all black holes will eventually evaporate due primarily to the transformation of the energy of mass into the energy of space.

I accept that gravity has infinite range.

I assert that after the black holes evaporate the universe will stop expanding but there will still be plenty of mass in existence.

I assert that gravity will begin to accelerate all mass toward a location at the overall center of gravity.

I assert that as all mass continues to increase in velocity the total energy of all space in the universe will be increasingly transformed into kinetic energy.

I assert that this acceleration of mass will continue like a bunch of runaway trains all heading for the same station and will eventually crash and form the mother of all black holes.

I assert that at that instant a big bang will occur and a vast amount of mass will be instantly transformed into space and the rest of the energy will form a very large blob of quark-gluon plasma.

I assert that this process is how the universe experiences an eternal bang crunch cycle and that all energy is conserved and is finite.

I assert that the question of what is outside the universe is best answered by the word "nothing", not even space since space is a form of something called energy.

I assert that "dark matter" is largely, if not totally, composed of the quantum particles that pop into and out of existence throughout all of space and is nothing more than a transformation of energy.

I assert that the concept of the existence of multiple universes is invalid because the range of gravity is infinite. "In the end, there can be only one"

That is all I have to say about the big bang. Regards.

I agree with those how say time is a mental construct and not a physical reality.

I agree that motion is real physically and is a form of energy but time is not a form of energy.

I agree that time is nothing more than a way to measure motion and to measure anything there must be a thinking entity to do the measuring.

A clock is nothing more than a repetitive motion with a reasonably consistent repetition rate.

We thinkers cannot even think of much without using the notion of time because we were born in a universe where everything is in motion relative to most other things that exist.

To be anything remotely close to intelligent we must have and use the mental construct of time to deal with our environment of motion.

Viewing time as physically real is a confusion of the thinking observer with the observed.

This means that a notion of time, much less time as a physical reality, cannot exist apart from a thinking entity.

Imagine our early universe, full of objects in relative motion, and a mythical god snaps her fingers and all thinking entities vanish.

Given this situation would motion still exist?

Of course it would, and this is consistent with all of the motions in our young universe existing before thinking entities arrived on the scene.

However, there is no way to measure the motions without the thinking entity even though there are plenty of repetitive clocks.

Planets are orbiting stars and spinning on an axis and Cesium atoms are decaying at a very constant rate.

However, these natural clocks have no way of being viewed or used as clocks without a thinking entity.

Therefore, time is dependent upon the existence of thinking entities but motion and space are not.

I, therefore, assert that anything that is dependent upon the existence of a thinking entity to perceive it cannot be an independent real physical reality.

I think time only runs in our heads and is not a part of physical reality. You might be surprised that there are a (admitted minority) of physicists that are of that opinion. One notable guy is Julian Barbour but there are others, however that does not mean that they all agree on particulars.

Some that think time is a mental construct as I do but also think that space is not real. I think that space is real and also think that all real things are forms of energy including space.. Us humans are so wrapped up in measuring and explaining that we find it pretty easy to get our thoughts confused with reality. Our brains invented time when we were pre-human. How else can the brain of a predator attempt to predict the motion of a foe or a prey? Cause and effect at our level of existence is obvious. When we look at the really big and the really small levels of existence things are less obvious. There are many clocks in nature and as our intelligence progressed we discovered them and applied them to our problems and measurements. The universe has no problems or measurements. We have invented some pretty accurate clocks that scientists now use to measure things. Somehow, they think they are measuring time but they are really measuring relative motion. There is no time continuum there is only a motion continuum. Everything that exists moves and everything that exists is energy. All energy is connected either directly or indirectly. There are no multiple universes, there is only one. If there are other vast organizations of energy that are beyond our current ability to sense or theoretically anticipate then these too are a part of the one and only cohesive universe. There are no voids on non energy in our universe and our universe is not bounded by a void of nothing. The universe does not need to be defined by an opposite of existence. We sometimes get wrapped up and twisted around the axle of our language. If I say that the universe is bounded by a void of absolutely nothing, not even space, where does that assertion leave me in understanding anything? Nowhere!!! To assert that space is a void is to say it is the nothing of non-existence. I feel quite confident in asserting that when I move my hand it is not pushing aside molecules of atoms to occupy nothing. I feel much better asserting that the atoms of my hand are pushing aside a certain amount of space which fills in where my hand was very much like moving my hand under water. Further, I assert that the space within my hands atoms is trapped there in those structures because it is a part of their total energy and they cannot exist without it. All of the preceding is, of course, not science. But, it is a philosophy that some scientist might choose to investigate.