What is time?

University of Helsinki ^ | 4/15/05 | Simo Salmela

[RightWhale]

Okay, this thread has had all night to 'splain time. What's the matter? Need more time?

[Gunrunner2]

I think so. . .I'm in London now and lost time. . .

;-)

[USCG SimTech]

This Universe is within a bandwidth of resonance from the highest frequency (smallest resonant cavity.. Planck, perhaps)

But what freqs?(what oscillates or potentially oscillates) Thanks for your thought.

Space itself. So used to the ground being our ultimate, stable foundation until there's an earthquake. Space is like energy, energy is like time. There is the potential (Expanse, eternity) and the kinetic (infinitesimality and never).

Don't even get me started on the most crucial to us... the unlimited number of infinitesimal points, being created at an unlimited rate, forever... just to fill the infinite expanse... thereby creating it... or is it the other way around. Infinite expansing creates in the same kinetic birthing of the the newness of those unlimited number of infinitesimal points of space.

Gotta stop thinking of space devoid of all matter and energy as a defined nothing.

Actually, the BIG TRIAD is unified. Can't have infinite expanse (apparent static and it's actual dynamic structural features), infinitesimality (apparent static and it's actual dynamic structural features), and the unlimited number of infinitesimal points (apparent static and it's actual dynamic structural features) at any time, apart from each other and still any exist.

I got huge queen bumble bee in my room. I'm going to try and get it outside right now... used to pet them like they were a dog when I was a kid, on cold spring days.

[USCG SimTech]

Time does not pass. Things change instantaneously and continuously in infinitesimaly tiny amounts. We experience the cumulative amount of these tiny changes and define it as passed time (or the past). But there does not exist either a past or future. There is only an infinitesimaly minute present that is constantly changing. The change and the time that takes place is so small that it can't even be defined as present time. Therefore, there is no past, present or future, only stillness. Time is a trick that our minds and constructs play on us sentient beings. I know I ain't making any sense, just wanted to say what I felt at the moment.

I think time is a construct just like pages in a book, yes, by an intellect with the power to produce such a structural definition. The "Book of Life" each of us is recording at this very moment needs a medium, or tape, if you prefer, to move forward across the heads. The blank "tape" medium is dimensional space itself, being created for infinitesimal durations at an infinite rate (balancing out to a constant, droning, ON)

This way we can be shown how to come, to become as an infinite being. We're so limited in our ability to sense and understand.

The creation of this time-framing kinetics method of recording is quite the invention, and sacrifice, for an Infinite Being to put forth... just to get us sheep into the fold.

...and I thought I worked hard last week

[beavus]

Even if all matter was packed into an extremely tiny dot, the dot existed, and therefore time existed. Time and matter are connected...so it is approprite to refer to before the Big Bang

There is no logical requirement of a time before the big bang, though lack of intuitiveness may make it seem so. To assert such a time, is essentially to deny that the universe has a beginning--a reasonable theory I suppose, but it is not the BB theory. And, the notion of time without beginning does have conceptual problems of its own.

The BB is ultimately just a simple hypothetical backward projection of the observation of the expansion of the universe. It must also incorporate the rest of physics, which appears to show time inextricably linked to mass and space. Physics is a mystery at certain energy levels and scales, so the BB theory is not well conceived all the way down to "a point".

When you say you disagree with the BB theory, is it the observation of an expanding universe you disagree with, or do you suppose there was something more complicated than simple expansion that occured in the past? Do you find an infinite universe easier to conceive of than a finite one?

[beavus]

Time does not pass. Things change instantaneously and continuously in infinitesimaly tiny amounts. We experience the cumulative amount of these tiny changes and define it as passed time (or the past). But there does not exist either a past or future. There is only an infinitesimaly minute present that is constantly changing. The change and the time that takes place is so small that it can't even be defined as present time. Therefore, there is no past, present or future, only stillness.

Interesting. But, infinitessimals are not observables (how could they be?). Our concepts of them derive from abstracting away finite limitations of our observations, and extrapolating. It is not necessarily a fact that time passes in infinitessimal continuous steps. Although, it certainly is smoother than the current limits of our powers of observation, so who knows. Still, there is reason to think time is quantized, when incorporating opposing limits of the Uncertainty Principle and the Schwarzschild radius.

[USCG SimTech]

Interesting. But, infinitessimals are not observables (how could they be?). Our concepts of them derive from abstracting away finite limitations of our observations, and extrapolating. It is not necessarily a fact that time passes in infinitessimal continuous steps. Although, it certainly is smoother than the current limits of our powers of observation, so who knows. Still, there is reason to think time is quantized, when incorporating opposing limits of the Uncertainty Principle and the Schwarzschild radius.

But is it proper to assume mathematics, with the application of a finite receptor as an observer, can be changed, just because of the limitations of the observer?

I choose to believe that every single perch of observation, if it finite in structure, will be flawed, as is mine.

The kinetics existances of the the BIG THREE (Each single point collapsing into infinitesimatlity, forever and at an infinite rate; There are is the number of these infinitesimalities being created at an unlimited rate; all to fill, or because it creates the kinetics enforcing - The ONE infinite expanse multiplying at an unlimited rate, forever...

They do cause me to cock my head a bit to the side

My question is does the kinetic growth of the Expanse force the creation-birth of the more and more unlimited number of infinitesimal points... Or is it that the unlimited "reproduction" of the number of infinitesimal points force the kinetics upon expanse to continue it's path?

I've always found... ask and wait...

I have my suspicions.... I'll wait

I got my whole life, which I know beyond faith extends past this world... as does for all... whether you like it or not. If time exists, space exists, and you exist, you have been recorded in those time frame-slots (11 dimensions of space are the "tape", time is the "tape across the heads" mechanism. There is no erase-the-tape function. There is escape (mercy), if you chose to record this during your birth to death recording-on (alive) function. All this can be a heaven for you, or a hell.

Quite sorry... off on a tangent again.

[beavus]

But is it proper to assume mathematics, with the application of a finite receptor as an observer, can be changed, just because of the limitations of the observer?

There is no relation between the two. We know things through concepts. Concepts derive from observations and the powers of abstraction. Abstracting away the way we quantitate our observations from all of the other properties of those concretes leads us to mathematics. When we abstract away all notions of a broken stick except the observation of halving its length, we are left with the very abstract notion of halving a length. Free from the other properties of the stick, we can conceive of that halving without limit. Thus mathematically we concieve of infinitessimals, but is an error to assume that infinitessimal stick fragments have been observed.

I choose to believe that every single perch of observation, if it finite in structure, will be flawed, as is mine.

"Flawed" is a negative value judgement. Why judge anything less than omniscient as bad? All things have their limits. Is anything else even conceivable? Denigrating things with limits is thus a denigration of all possible things.

The kinetics existances of the the BIG THREE (Each single point collapsing into infinitesimatlity, forever and at an infinite rate; There are is the number of these infinitesimalities being created at an unlimited rate; all to fill, or because it creates the kinetics enforcing - The ONE infinite expanse multiplying at an unlimited rate, forever...

Infinites and infinitessimals--more mathematical constructs abstracted from finite observations of the world and then applied to the world as a model. Most mathematics of black holes entail a singularity. But that singularity may very well be a limitation of the model, as no model is perfect. In fact, singularities in models (generally speaking) are typically assumed to result from model limitations.

[LiteKeeper]

To answer your question directly - I am a young earth creationist...I reject both the idea of an infinite universe, as well as the idea of a "BB."

[beavus]

.I reject both the idea of an infinite universe, as well as the idea of a "BB."

So you accept a finite universe, but not the big bang version?

How does your theory incorporate the observation of an expanding universe?

[LiteKeeper]

I am not an astronomer, but my reading indicates that there are a growing number of astronomers who are not convinced that an expanding universe indicates the BB.

Exploding the Big Bang

[delacoert]

What is time?

A symptom of increasing entropy in an exoanding universe.

[beavus]

I am not an astronomer, but my reading indicates that there are a growing number of astronomers who are not convinced that an expanding universe indicates the BB.

So you can accept the observation of an expanding universe. Do you see a problem with projecting that backward in time?