Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by aguy2

  1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Imagine a man is walking down a street and meets another man walking in nthe opposite direction. Now assuming they meet, which they never will, there can be zero, since if there is a foundation only can the rest exist, and vice versa. So assuming that if they meet they make x, if they never meet, there is no x, and thus no zero.





    Sorry, I already proved that there was no such thing as 'zero' in the 1970s.

    My line of reasoning was:

    If 'zero'='nothing', and 'no'+'thing' = 'nothing', then there would be 'no' such 'thing' as 'zero'!


  2. But what does "moving at 1/35 C" actually mean? Relative to what? I don't disagree that it wouldn't work, I'm just thinking that the reasons are a bit more complicated (and more fundamental). So you might show up in the same reference frame, but what does that even mean? Is there some traceable continuity between my reference frame (and my position in it) now and at some point in the future? I don't know.


    My homegrown calculation of 1/35 C appears to be wildly off. Wiki is currently saying that Sol's total velocity (in relation to CMB) is only about 370 km/sec or approx. 1/840 C.


    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged
    I think you are basically using the relative location (such as the Virgo cluster) to express some of the distance variance, not all of it.

    Although this is speculative on my part (see Is the Universe Collapsing? - 2008 11/11/08 in this forum) I think there is a reasonable possibility that, in a reduced form, the BB event/body may still be exant, and thus serve as a location for estimating relative motion. Other than that, the CMB would also serve.


    Essentially, the force of gravity from various sources is changing our acceleration at every moment, and if even if we kept our current velocity (which is irrelevant if we 'instantly' time travel) so as to change our time, but not our location, everything will have gone flying on by or (if you go back) not caught up with where we are.


    Yes, this is the point I was trying to make. If one changes ones temporal location (either backwards or forwards) but not ones spatual location, then to an observer you appear to be where the observer is headed if you traveled back in time, and would appear to be where the observer was, if you traveled ahead in time.


    If you are in a park' date=' and you travel 10 years into the future, you have to both travel through time [i']and [/i]chase the park, covering all the distance the park did.

    Is that what you mean?


    Yes, in order to stay in the park, the time traveler would not only change his temporal location, but would also have to travel the same convoluted spatual path the park will.


    Although this is an interesting thought experiment, this does not mean to say that I consider physical time travel to be possible. I don't really think physical time travel is possible, if for no other reason than that the sub-atomic and atomic components of any physical body have quite likely been around since the very early universe, and there could very well be constraints precluding the possibility of something existing twice in the same temporal location.


  3. But what does "moving at 1/35 C" actually mean? Relative to what?

    An 'inertial observer'?

    I don't disagree that it wouldn't work, I'm just thinking that the reasons are a bit more complicated (and more fundamental). So you might show up in the same reference frame, but what does that[/i'] even mean? Is there some traceable continuity between my reference frame (and my position in it) now and at some point in the future? I don't know.

    I don't either, but for some time I have suspected that 'time' and 'space' may be 'equivalent', in that within the context of a Big Bang universe their sum may be a constant.


    My thought experiment that presumes that traveling 'back' in time would be actually traveling 'forward' spatually seems consistant with my speculation that equivalency is not confined to mass/energy.


    This an aside and probably gist for another thread, but as long as we are looking at 'relative motion' I have a question concerning the relative motion of Terra (and other orbiting bodies) and the sun:

    Seeing as the sun is orbiting the galactic center, to an outside observer, wouldn't the orbital path of Terra be a wave? I have tried to plot the yearly path of the planet in relation to the galactic center and seem to come up with a wave that at one point does a 'loop'. IOW in relation to the center of the galaxy the planet crosses its own path once a year. I have searched the internet but can't find where any competent professional has examined or plotted both the solar and galactic orbital path. I really don't trust my own attempt to plot this path. Do you think you might be able ro help me out?


  4. Why do all the speculations concerning the possibility of 'time travel' presume a non-dynamic staring point, when there is no such thing?


    Any point on Terra is moving. It is rotating in relation to the planet's axis. It is orbiting our sun. Our sun is orbiting the center of the Milky Way, the Milky Way is moving closer to Andromena, and our glactic cluster as a whole is moving toward a point behind the Virgo Cluster. The total sum of these velocities might be something like 1/35 C.


    Wouldn't it stand to reason that if you were to travel 35 seconds into the past, you would reappear into empty space approx. 186,000 miles ahead of where you were, and if you stayed in place, 35 seconds latter you would be right back to when and where you were?


  5. ========================================

    AGUY, I'm trying to think how to respond to your post.

    In standard cosmology one assumes approximately uniform matter distribution. The solutions to the Einstein equation---with the simplifying uniformity assumptions----include only a few possibilities and they all have constant spatial curvature. Zero spatial curvature or some other constant.


    When you solve the equations you never get cones.


    I can't picture a universe that is spatial conic.


    At the point, I suspect the cone would have a singularity. Infinite curvature. Elsewhere a conical space might be flat. Zero curvature. It would be a strange non-uniform 3D space which I don't think could arise in nature.


    Basically it's beyond my ken. The idea doesn't make sense to me. Maybe someone else would like to respond.


    I appreciate the time and effort it took to respond, but could I ask for more, by asking you to critique a more detailed presentation of my cosmolgical conjectures. It is titled "Is the Universe Collapsing-2008" and is posted in the "Pseudoscience and Speculations" forum.


    For instance, is my speculation that the Big Bang event/body could have displayed a high degree of Angular Momentum completely out of line?


  6. in re: the shape of the universe


    ==quote iNow's texas link==

    • Important question: What is K of the universe?

    – K determines curvature of 3-d space in which we are


    • According to Gauss’s theorema egregium, we

    can measure K, without knowing anything about

    the 4th dimension.

    – This implies that the shape of the observable universe

    can be determined!



    ...If it is exactly zero, we can say space is overall flat (with small local "bumps and dents" caused by local massive objects). If it is negative then space is positive curved overall. If Omegak is positive then space curvature is negative...


    0.0179 < Omegak < 0.0081


    One way to estimate Omegak uses galaxy counts. Essentially, if space is flat (uncurved) then you expect the number of galaxies in a spherical volume to increase as the cube of the radius. But if space is positive curved, you expect the increase to be less than that. Counting galaxies (assuming they are roughly uniform distributed) is a way of measuring the volume of the sphere...


    I have a question:

    Temporal considerations aside, if one assumed the visible universe were "conic" and not "spherical" in shape, would the observed slight negative curvature be consistent with the "lateral expansion" of a conic shape?


  7. For the sake of argument, let's say that the universe is a balloon; the surface of the balloon being our universe.


    Now if the radius of the balloon increases at a constant rate, then the surface area of the balloon will increase at an accelerating rate. Beings on the surface of the balloon would see their universe as having an accelerating expansion.


    So my question is, could the growth of the universe be constant in some higher dimension that we can't observe?


    I would speculate, "Yes." We can't directly observe the 'arrow of time' (well, maybe we are, but are but intrepreting it as the 'spatual' velocity C), other than in our minds, and here, either by convention or some sort a psychological survival mechanism, we normally 'see' time as accumulating.


    I am speculating that time and space could very well be 'equivalent' forms of one another, and that if our universe consists of a single cycle of a BB/BC situation, then it is easy to see that our universe is, "running out of time", and, of course, space would be expanding.


    Ps. If there is a reasonable possibility that our context 'changed' from a 0 dimensional singularity to the multiple dimensions we currently observe, why isn't 'time' as expressed as 'change' known as the 1st dimension and not the 4th?



    In other words, we can see the balloon as expanding by a linear increase of r, but the 2d beings on the surface of the balloon can't.


    The models that assume isometric expansion (the balloon analogy) have real problems. see Is the Universe Collapsing?-2008 in this forum.


  8. One of the arguments that got people away from the BB theory was the GR or gravity should have been too high for an expansion. This would be like expecting the biggest black holes to expand. This argument opened the door to other scenarios in spite universe expansion data. Another way to look at it, the same argument implies lingering until it finally is able to somehow reverse. Say is it pulsating in and out of singularity, erratically. We would have sort of a discontinuous ticking of the clock, with these ticks heading to the future probability one key pulse will open up space-time for good.


    At the singularity state there is no time. If there are any odds, a vibration can occur since time is not a factor. Using simple probability, small pulses are more likely than the huge BB pulse. So we might expect a lingering-vibration until the lower odds for full expansion finally get satisfied. It is not clear how much all the ticks in the scenario, add to.


    You seem to be speculating that once "opened up" time/space will expand indefinitely. My speculation is that our universe is a "timed" event. I just posted this year's version of my contentions in the "Pseudoscience and Speculations" forum's thread Is the Universe Collapsing?-2008. You might want to check it out.


  9. Hi folks,


    It is my contention and speculation that the aphorism:


    "You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar."


    Is completely false.


    I contend that vinegar is very effective at catching flies, whereas honey is useless. This is due to the observation that I found I had a leakage of a honey dispenser (One of those squirty ones that sits on it cap) that had been sitting on an open shelf unattended for some time, and it had ZERO, ZIP, NADA, insects caught in it. Whereas an aqueous preparation of malt vinegar, water and dish soap, theorised by myself to mimic the odor of rotting fruit and thus attract fruit flies, catches and kills dozens of fruit flies a day.






    (BTW, this seemed most appropriate section for this, please direct me otherwise if I was wrong)


    Here are 2 more debunks:


    "If you wish in 1 hand and s*** in the other, you know what you will get."


    I contend that, "You will get your wish.", that you shouldn't have done that!



    "Nice guys finish last."


    I contend, "Everything is true about that statement, except for the 'last' word."



    Ps. Nice find big314mp. I have added the site to my favorites.

  10. in re: t=0?


    The estimate of 13.7 billions has an arbitrary t=0. Say the first event, we call t=0, actually lingered for 10 billion years before it began to expand, this would all be lumped as 0 seconds. We started the stop watch when the expansion began, but that does not mean the universe clock just appeared when we start the earth clock. That assumption is used to set the clock at 0. The universe clock could already be at t=X but we call it 0, by human convention.


    Are there other sound reasons, other than human convention, to presume that at the BB t had to equal 0?


    Semanticly at least, it seems to make sense to me that at its inception (the BB), "The universe would have had all the time it will ever have.", thus t=1.


    If t=1 at the BB and s=0, might not time/space be seen as 'equivalent' in that their sum is a constant?


    I tend to look at reality (our universe) more from a philsophical POV, but why is 'time' seen in physics as the 4th dimension? Is this just because it was the 4th dimension to be considered? There seems to be a reasonable possibility that the BB developed from a 0 dimension singularity. If a 0 dimension precursor state changes into a multi-dimensionsl state, wouldn't the arrow of time (change) be the 1st dimension and not the 4th?


  11. Hi,

    It is time again for my yearly update.


    These cosmological speculations were largely 'induced' from the philosophical paradigm/syllogism: "We and the Universe around Us are involved in an ongoing, staged process of self-engenderment or self-creation; wherein and whereby the Creator of Us and the Universe around Us is attempting to engender or create itself."

    see http://www.self-engenderment.com


    My variant of the BB/BC model presumes that the BB event/body displayed a high degree of 'angular momentum'.


    When this conserved AM began to be co-opted by emerging sub-atomic structures, the BB event/body partially collapsed, and as a consequence ejected 2 large polar jet/pulses.


    One of these jet/pulses was comprised of a remnant of un-annihilated anti-matter, and the other a remnant of matter. It is this jet/pulse that we are observing as the visible universe. My model assumes this matter and anti-matter ejection is what is being called the 'inflationary era'.


    The model also assumes that, although greatly reduced, the BB event/body that ejected the jet/pulses is still exant, and is the source of what is being called 'dark energy'.


    The model conjectures that although at first generally expanding 'isometrically', our all-matter, conic jet/pulse has since begun to lose momentum vis-a-vis the still exant BB event/body and as a consequence is ongoing an accelerating, generally 'lateral' expansion, and is becoming increasingly 'turbulent'.


    I am contending that this model provides reasonable solutions to many of the problems plaguing more conventional models.

    1) Why isn't the visible universe seen as half matter and half anti-matter?

    2) Why does the visible universe seem to be 'flat' (horizon problem)?

    3) What caused the 'inflationary era'?

    4) What is the source and nature of 'dark energy'?

    5) Why does the visible universe seem to be expanding at an accelerating rate?


    I have been attempting to bring these conjectures to the attention of the professionals, so that they can be properly tested, since 2003, and it seems like every year (from an interested amateur's POV) more evidence seems to accumulate that seems to be supportive of these conjectures.


    Year before last it was that B-meson asymmetry does not seem to account for the complete lack of anti-matter.


    Last year's WMAP data seemed to see the seeds of my model's prediction of increasing 'turbulence', in a possible 'haploid' structure in the early post-inflationary era.


    This year's WMAP data seems supportive of my models presumption of a still exant BB event/body, while being increasingly supportive of a 'turbulent, all-matter, jet/pulse expanding laterally, due to a loss of momentum'.


    see http://www.http://arXiv.org/abs/0809.3734

    "The flow is difficult to explain by gravitational evolution within the framework of the concordance LCDM model and may be indicative of the tilt exerted across the entire current horizon by far-away pre-inflationary inhomogeneities."


  12. Yes, you can have collections of particles moving in a macroscopic way that has angular momentum.


    Yes, but first there must be particles. Apparently there is a high likelyhood that the very early pre-inflationary universe did not have particles per se. If there are no sub-atomic particles and no classical bodies to express angular momentum, but AM is a conserved property that was present at the BB, then I am contending that it is highly likely that the pre-inflationary era displayed the conserved AM in the form of a spinning/rotating BB event/body.


  13. I don't see why the inflationary era should have a preferred rotational axis.


    Neither do I. I am contending that the pre-inflationary era would display a high degree of angular momentum, and as a consequence of this angular momentum any large scale ejection of either matter or anti-matter would most likely take the form of polar jet/pulses. These twin polar jet/pulses would not themselves display spin/rotational angular momentum, although their constituent matter and anti-matter would.


    And yes, the quantum case should hold true as well.


    Can I take it that you agree that there is a good possibility that although neither leptons nor classical bodies existed in the early (pre-inflationary) universe, the angular momentum they presently display, being a conserved property, did, and this angular momentum could likely have meant that the pre-inflationary universe spun in a quantum sense, rotated in a classical sense, or both?


  14. Classical angular momentum is conserved because space is rotationally symmetric, i.e. there is no preferred axis. This should date back to the Big Bang.


    Well, I would tend to say that space's rotational symmetry only dates back to the 'inflationary era', but for now it is enough for me to know that you agree that the source of classical AM dates back to the BB.


    I know professionals throw 'hissy fits' if anyone presumes that there is any scalar relationship between classical and quantum AM, but isn't quantum AM (spin) also a conserved property that dates back to the BB?


  15. "None of the Above".


    Edwards | Paul | Kucinich = Impossible.


    Clinton = Possible, but unlikely.


    What about more credibles candidates ?... Richardson, Webb...


    I am hoping that either the Democrat nominee or John McCain asks Senator Webb to play the role of a 'good' (co-president) Chaney.


    Webb calls himself a "Reagon Democrat", so for McCain to 'reach across the aisle' for a vice president is a real (although unlikely) possibility.


    What do ya'll think?


  16. If both quantum and classical AM (Anglular Momentum) are 'conserved' properties, wouldn't it be possible that this conservation stretchs back to the BB (Big Bang)? If AM only came into existence after the BB, when (in what era?) would it have done so?



    The answer is all down to motion. Or the lack of it.


    Consider a 10 kilogram cannonball travelling at 1 metre per second in space relative to you... because all the while you were never too sure whether it was you moving or the cannonball.


    When we turn our attention from a cannonball to a photon


    Now imagine you’re the electron, only it’s you moving instead of the photon.


    Imagine the electron and all other things which display the characteristic of mass temporally flowing at C and a photon that, except for oscillations which we observe as frequency, has dropped out of the generalized temporal flow, and the electron which remains embedded in the temporal flow runs into the photon.


    Other than that, I don't think your electron/photon scattering is supported by observation. I think the general consensus is that the original photon will be absorbed and another photon of different frequency/oscillation will be 'emitted' in the majority view, and 'left behind' in my speculative scenerio.


  18. Ok let us assume that ther is no motion in a region of space 1 light minute in radius. So, according to your reasoning, does time occure within this region of space?


    Are you asking, "Does space age?"


    If it doesn't then what occures if someone ouside that region enters it?


    The act of entering would mean motion, and once there the constituents of 'someone' would display at least quantum motion.


    What if there was an atom of radioactive matter that would emmit a particle every 30 seconds? Since there is no movment in that region for 1 minute then how would that atom "know" to emmit that partical after 30 seconds (as 30 seconds can't occure in a region of no time)?


    The situation would be the as above. The atom would be displaying at least quantum motion.


  19. And I hope you don't think I didn't get your point though...it's just that black people seem to have dropped that pc issue a long time ago...perhaps for practical reasons as well?


    Yes. I see the genesis of American racial terminology thusly: in the 50's normal usage was 'white/negro'. In the 60's negro was replaced by the term 'black', and for some time we had a 'white/black' dichotomy, and starting in the 80's 'African/American' or 'Afro/American' became a more and more common usage.


    Speaking as an American I don't think any of us should miss the 'white/black' dichotomy with all its semantic connotations. European/American and African/American may be a bit more awkward, but it is a lot more accurate, a lot less confrontational, and maybe soon replaced by the inclusive term '200 year American'.



    a photon doesn’t have a colour. It has a wavelength, an oscillation, a motion.


    But we know that sound is pressure waves, and when we look beyond this at the air molecules, we know that sound relies on motion.


    Pressure is related to sound, and to touch. You feel it in your ears on a plane, or on your chest if you dive. You can feel it when I shake your hand. But you know you can’t measure the pressure of an atom, because pressure isn’t a fundamental property of the sub-atomic world. It’s a derived effect, and the Kinetic Theory of Gases tells us it’s derived from motion.


    Can you feel it coursing through your veins? No. Because what’s really there is mass, and relative motion.


    You can also feel heat. Touch that pretty stove and sizz, you feel heat. We talk about heat exchangers and heat flow as if there’s some magical mysterious fluid in there. And yet we know there isn’t. We know that heat is another derived effect of motion.


    Taste is chemical in nature, and primitive. Most of your sense of taste is really your sense of smell. Do you know how smell works? Look up olfaction and you’ll learn about molecular shape. But the latest theory from a guy called Luca Turin says it’s all down to molecular vibration, not shape, because isomers smell the same. That’s motion again.


    The point of all this is there’s a lot of motion out there, and most of your senses are motion detectors. But it never occurred to you because you’re accustomed to thinking about the world in terms of how you experience it, rather than the scientific, empirical, fundamental, ontological things that are there. And nowhere is this more so than with time.


    So, what is time? Let’s start by looking up the definition of a second:


    Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0K…


    So, a second is nine billion periods of radiation.


    And we all know that velocity is a distance divided by a time. So a period is a distance divided by a distance divided by a time. The result is another period of time. This definition of time is circular and tells us nothing. How do we define it? Let’s look at frequency again:


    Frequency is the measurement of the number of times that a repeated event occurs per unit of time.


    So frequency is a number of events per second. And a second is a number of some other events. The interval between events is measured in terms of other events. And the interval between those events is measured in terms of other events. Until there are no events left, only intervals. And intervals are frozen timeless moments. For time is a measure of events, of change, measured by and against some other change. And for things to change, something, somewhere, somehow, has to have motion. You don’t need time to have motion. You need motion to have time.


    We measured nine billion oscillation events and defined that as a second. We counted events. We counted motions.


    We count regular atomic motion to use as a ratio against some other motion, be it of light, atoms, clocks, or brains.


    That's why the past is only in your head and your records. It isn’t a place you can travel to. It’s the places where things moved from. All those places are still here, now. And while the past is the integral of all nows, now lasts for no time at all. Because time needs events, and if there were only intervals and no events, there wouldn’t be any time. When you take away the events and the motion, you take away the time. A second isn’t some slice of spacetime, it’s just nine billion motions of a caesium atom.



    What can you see? What can you measure? Yes you can measure height. And width. And if it wasn't just a picture you could also measure depth. That's three Dimensions, with a capital D because we have freedom of movement in those dimensions.



    Temperature is an aspect of heat, that derived effect of motion. When you measure the temperature you are measuring motion, because that’s what’s there. You can call it a dimension, but there can be no motion in this dimension, because it’s a measure of motion. If you were one of those dots, immersed in temperature like we are immersed in time, you would not talk of climbing to a “high temperature”, because there is no height. Likewise we cannot travel a length of time, because there is no length, just as there is no height in temperature. So time is a dimension with a small d. It's a measure of change of place rather than a measure of place, and it has no absolute units, because you can only measure one change of place against another.


    To travel backwards in time we'd need to unevent events, we’d need negative motion. But motion is motion whichever way it goes. You can’t have negative motion. So you can’t travel backwards in time. There are no time travel paradoxes, because there is no time travel, and there is no time travel because there is no travelling in time. And there never was. Time didn’t start fifteen billion years ago. Because time didn’t start in the first place. It was motion that started in the first place. And it was fifteen billion light years away by every light path you can track through timeless space. That’s how far we’ve come.


    And now we can move on.


    Farsight, this was a real well done presentation.


    Am I correct in assuming that you are saying that 'time', 'motion', and 'change' are interchangable terms?


    Can I also assume that oscillations and oscillations percieved as frequency play a big part in your conceptual framework?


    My past pov has postulated that all the rest of reality is 'time dependent', but I think I could go with 'motion dependent' and/or 'change dependent'. You are making a good case.


  21. As for dealing with your fists, in most quarters I think you will find your opponent laughing too hard to even bother. I know I am. :D


    I don't really mind being the Bad Guy or even laughed at, seeing as I usually express my objections as light hearted as possible; just so long as those around me know I am 'right' not 'white'.


  22. Wow, I thought you were being sarcastic. Good lord, has white guilt really taken us this far?


    Can I still be white? Please?


    Of course you can call yourself 'white'; you just shouldn't call me 'white' if I find the term objectionable, even though a person with normal eyesight could spot a pimple on my butt from 1/4 mile away.


    I'm kinda tired of haivng to be the Bad Guy all the time, but sounds like you don't mind a bit. Thanks!


    Other than some possible confusion of the messenger with the message, you are probably right about my willingness to be the Bad Guy if necessary.


  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.