time big bang

Quote:

There is a problem with the idea of time moving backwards. Suppose it is now 2009, and time is going backwards. In which direction would my memory point?

If time is locked in with the expansion of space which seems to be the way cosmologists look at the universe then with a reversal from expansion to collapse maybe everything will run backwards, just like a rewinding video tape, with all of our collective memories and actions etc., being erased in the process. We would not be having any new experiences ... we would be having all of our collective experiences erased.

Quote:

If, on the other hand, we all remembered 2010 and not 2008, our mental state would be different from what it had been on the forward journey, so the backward journey would not involve an exact reversal of events, but something new. So, in that case too, we might as well say that time is still moving forwards

Quote:

.

There would be nothing to experience in the collapse for there would be nothing new (only what we have experienced in the forward stage). In the backward stage these experiences would be erased -no experience of the process would be possible.

---------- Post added 10-21-2009 at 05:21 PM ----------

xris;98975 wrote:

I don't think he is advocating time moving backwards, just matter collapsing in on itself.Even if science can theoretically say this is possible there is no evidence that this has happened before. So we must assume this event is the first.

This is all speculation though.
Nothing could be proved one way or the other, even if a collapse happened and everything did move backwards in time and everything were to be erased, we would not know it.

I don't think this will happen. I think the universe is in a phase where it may become a steady state, like Einstein wanted it to be, with the force of expansion counterbalanced perfectly by the graviational pull of its mass. There is now some new evidence that has led cosmologists to state that the expansion of space is not slowing down, but speeding up. What this means, cosmologists don't really know. All we can do is speculate. Here, metaphysics can hold its own with any other discipline like cosmology or physics.

If time is locked in with the expansion of space which seems to be the way cosmologists look at the universe then with a reversal from expansion to collapse maybe everything will run backwards, just like a rewinding video tape, with all of our collective memories and actions etc., being erased in the process. We would not be having any new experiences ... we would be having all of our collective experiences erased.

Once again the observations rule this out as we see no evidence of a before.

---------- Post added 10-21-2009 at 06:16 AM ----------

Where do you hide these other universes ? are they in another dimension that is invisible to us? Its another theory that ignores known science and invents a magical everlasting series of unseen universes. Whats more feasible mine or yours?

Then xris we are back to the mystical and God are we not?, or we must accept that we will never know!

And I can accept your infinite eternal universe as another possibility, this theory cannot have a big bang as its bases can it?

It was not eternal, it had a begining that emerged from an observed nothing, but as nothing does not exist we have to accept that time started at that precise moment and nothing occurred previous to this event. If we try to imagine anything other than this, we make up magic tricks to explain our thoughts.

No one has mentioned the spiralling torus universe, its advocates are mathematically more able than me so the objections, i try ,are not capable of contradicting their theories. Its the only one, i find, that may give us an answer to the constant state universe we imagine it should be. We have to imagine our place in this universe to overcome the observed objections to this theory. I cant really comment because at the moment I cant get my head around their theories and how we fit the observations with the proposal.

XRIS in a steady state eternal universe the arrow of time would be pushed back into the infinite past and the now moment could never have happened and by extrapolation we would not exist. So time must have started somewhen and we must revert back to the big bang for answers

I simple wish for those who oppose my reasoning to stop saying we dont know and to advance alternatives we could examine. If we leave it simple to science, it will never be resolved.

I'm not ignoring the notion just stating that there must have been an occasion,of no time, no visible event. No one appears to want to answer my question. I will ask again, if we run back the events of the universe we come to a point of singularity. If the instance before the singularity appeared was not visible, to this universe, we have to speculate. I theories that if this mass was so infinitely large then it would not have a visible space surrounding it nor would it give rise to time. If we have no space, no time , we have nothing,does anyone disagree?

For a long time I considered that space was infinite but the matter was finite. Meaning the area of the universe was already there but our observation is that of the matter which is expanding. General relativity disagrees with that though. However; it only disagrees with that thought in one tiny way. Which is that matter and velocity have observable effects on time. This means that in some way the space itself is bound to the matter as well, which is what my original theory proposes are separate.

Here is one possibility. If traveling near the speed of light, time slows then could also having infinite mass also slow time? Why do I ask that? Because of that simple annoying equation states it. Nearing the speed of light an object would also increase in mass. So if you reverse the equation with the theory that the singularity has infinite mass then by all means it is either moving at the speed of light or time is being held incredibly slow, perhaps if you humor me, near stopped.

So personally I buy the theory that our universe is just one expansion that preceded a contraction. I even theorize that it would be possible to bring all the matter even space itself back into a singularity simply through the gravitational properties of blackholes and dark matter. Eventually all matter will recondence into a single point of incredibly high mass perhaps near infinite as silly as that might sound and for some reason becomes unstable and breaks appart recreating the universe.

I appreciate your thought pattern because i have gone that way to, in the past. Cosmologist object to that because they find no evidence of a universe prior to this expansion, no back ground noise that would remain from a previous universe. If you could overcome that problem and dismiss it, why should it, when reduced to this singularity not disappear? If it disappears then we have no time no space,it does not exist. Your reasoning only tries to describe the reason with no observable evidence.

We have very few options to consider when we look at the evidence. This universe, this space, is virgin to this universe, it has not been occupied before. It indicates that we need another dimension from where it could originate and do you know of any science that can define or even start to describe another dimension? Many try but the science is theoretical and only ever gives vague strange pictures that no one can truly say is logical.

I will ask again, if we run back the events of the universe we come to a point of singularity.

The question of wether time is discrete or continuous is interesting. What occured prior to the planck time, 10-43 seconds is, currently, unknowable. I think it is unknowable only in that the very concepts we are familiar with ie space and time, cause and effect are no longer applicable. It becomes impossible to reach the actual event while hanging on to redundant concepts.

Science tells us that at this moment we can see no reason for it not to continue to expand and we have no evidence of a previous universe. We must accept these observations or we will fail to ever come to a philosophical possible conclusion. The clues are there its up to us to examine them.

I agree that we have other theories but they are just speculative as any others , science does not answer these questions, it invents possibilities, that in fact have no more credibility than mine. They create more questions than answers.

One that parallel universe have collided. How do you define two universes, what separates them, a void or nothing, we cant have voids and nothing does not exist. String theory is having problems and as for other dimensions, has that obtained any credibility in science. It is mentioned quite glibly, as if we have found these other dimensions or they are facts of nature. The science of how it was created does not give a reason why or from whence.

Sure, your theory and the alternate example I linked are both speculative, but if you are measuring them both against credibility

the objective and subjective components of the believability of a source or message. Credibility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then, yes both theories have subjective components. However the alternate example has objective components as well i.e. testable predictions (these experiments are ongoing as the predictions have not been dismissed by previous experiments). I am not sure that the call of equal credibility is justified.

You do not define two universes as, by definition there is only one universe, which includes all its components, of which some do not have the same dimensionality as others. What is thought to seperate these is not a void or nothing, but rather simply, another dimension. It is like saying, again rather simply, that volume is seperated from area by a higher dimension i.e. the thrid spatial dimension.

String theory does hold some credibility as some of its predictions are going to be tested at the LHC, eventually... one of these days...

I am afraid that there will always be the question of why or from whence, no matter what the explanation. For me it then becomes a matter of which explination holds more credibility.

Im not claiming two universities existing along side each other, i was referring to the links you gave, that advocated that proposal. If they don't live in the same dimension. the theory of other dimensions has to be explained allot more than science tries to at the moment. Credibility has to be from what we know, not what we claim we know. Observations and acceptance of what we see and can be examined. From what we observe, this universe appeared from nowhere. So I ask what is nothing and how do we describe this nothing. If a mass so large has the ability to be as nothing, no space or time , what is nothing? We have to accept this space the universe exists in, came from nothing, otherwise we would see evidence of it.

I can not accept any other theory, till it has been adequately proven, this idea that all events need a cause is not relevant to me.

From what we observe, this universe appeared from nowhere.

So I ask what is nothing and how do we describe this nothing.

If a mass so large has the ability to be as nothing, no space or time , what is nothing? We have to accept this space the universe exists in, came from nothing, otherwise we would see evidence of it.