The nature of time

@north,

Quote:

but this slowing is NOT based on time but by the object that is slowing down

….leaving me in a quandary. I wonder whether relativity if not semantics might figure into the discussion, that if we’re in relative motion your clock is slowing to me but not to you and vice-versa

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
but this slowing is NOT based on time but by the object that is slowing down
….leaving me in a quandary. I wonder whether relativity if not semantics might figure into the discussion, that if we’re in relative motion your clock is slowing to me but not to you and vice-versa

speed

relativity is about perspective

look to the rest of the Universe , what we experience means nothing , inotherwords our experience doesn't change how , what the Universe does at all

1 Reply

@north,

But in an infinite Universe forever, if anything that can happen, will, then it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that at some past time so long ago there’s no way to express a number, that humanoids might have had something to do with the way it is now

…Just sayin’ as the Devil’s Advocate

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

As I see it--and this is only an untestable metaphysical speculation--the universe is neither finite nor infinite. Both concepts are human fabrications that cannot with confidence be taken seriously. Whatever the universe is, if anything, its description may be no more than an unattainable ideal.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

As I see it--and this is only an untestable metaphysical speculation--the universe is neither finite nor infinite. Both concepts are human fabrications that cannot with confidence be taken seriously. Whatever the universe is, if anything, its description may be no more than an unattainable ideal.

I disagree

energy and matter are NOT a Human fabrication

if both are Human fabrication then some-one has to explain how this came about and therefore why ologies are a necessary investigation into the Nature of Nature

and further , since if one fabricates something then one has to understand fundamentally how , we brought these into manifestation

inotherwords , infinity is not a fabrication of Human thought but the understanding that energy and matter cannot be otherwise but infinite

to continue , if the Universe is finite and therefore as well , energy and matter , then that would mean that nothing begets something

because at some point energy and matter become completely extinct , completely and absolutely , they both no longer exist , then nothing comes in

and since nothing is the absolute opposite to something means that nothing has none of the qualties of something

space, depth , breadth , movement , and any physical manifestation of an object

nothing therefore will never become anything other than what it is , it will never evolve , into energy and matter

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

As I see it--and this is only an untestable metaphysical speculation--the universe is neither finite nor infinite.

There might be a third state but for now I supposewe have to work with what we’ve got

0 Replies

@north,

Quote:

energy and matter are NOT a Human fabrication

I think what JL was talking about, is finity and infinity, human fabrication only as they constitute concepts

Whatever that means

Quote:

inotherwords , infinity is not a fabrication of Human thought but the understanding that energy and matter cannot be otherwise but infinite

Did you mean “understanding” or “supposition”

Quote:

if the Universe is finite and therefore as well , energy and matter , then that would mean that nothing begets something

I don’t see why not. In the first place there’s a perfectly serious theory (not mine) that matter and energy do spring out of nothing, and second I see no reason why on the other hand their existence in a finite Universe can’t go on forever. In fact, that very scenario avoids all sorts of paradox

Quote:

because at some point energy and matter become completely extinct , completely and absolutely , they both no longer exist , then nothing comes in

North you might have to elaborate on that as it leaves the Average Clod (me) staggering around in circles shaking his head
m

Quote:

nothing therefore will never become anything other than what it is , it will never evolve , into energy and matter

As I said, it isn’t my theory. However to to avoid various contradiction I propose that matter, energy, etc exist forever in sequential Big-Bang—Big-Crunches, given maybe an instant of “nothingness” separating therm. Again however, to skirt the paradox, its duration might be zero

“Might,” I said, remember, Satan’s representative

0 Replies

Quote:

if the Universe is finite and therefore as well , energy and matter , then that would mean that nothing begets something

Quote:

I don’t see why not. In the first place there’s a perfectly serious theory (not mine) that matter and energy do spring out of nothing, and second I see no reason why on the other hand their existence in a finite Universe can’t go on forever. In fact, that very scenario avoids all sorts of paradox

they don't relise that for nothing to come from nothing means that there was something there in the first place

1 Reply

Quote:

because at some point energy and matter become completely extinct , completely and absolutely , they both no longer exist , then nothing comes in

Quote:

North you might have to elaborate on that as it leaves the Average Clod (me) staggering around in circles shaking his head

take in the WHOLE context of my post

not just what you pick out and then focus on

0 Replies

Quote:

nothing therefore will never become anything other than what it is , it will never evolve , into energy and matter

Quote:

As I said, it isn’t my theory. However to to avoid various contradiction I propose that matter, energy, etc exist forever in sequential Big-Bang—Big-Crunches, given maybe an instant of “nothingness” separating therm. Again however, to skirt the paradox, its duration might be zero

yet the evidence so far is that the galaxies are moving further and further away from each other , so much for the crunch

2 Replies

@north,

If dogs could think--dogthought, of course--their problem might be whether or not the universe was "bow" or "wow".

0 Replies

@north,

Quote:

they don't relize that for nothing to come from nothing means that there was something there in the first place

No North , to the contrary, there was indeed nothing (not my assertions, remember, I’m only Mephistopheles’ lawyer). However to relieve your concern about its reality its duration was zero

0 Replies

@north,

Quote:

yet the evidence so far is that the galaxies are moving further and further away from each other , so much for the crunch

Of course, absolutely, but doesn’t the prospect leave you with an uncomfortable intuitive reaction

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
yet the evidence so far is that the galaxies are moving further and further away from each other , so much for the crunch
Of course, absolutely, but doesn’t the prospect leave you with an uncomfortable intuitive reaction

no , why would it ?

1 Reply

@north,

Quote:

no , why would it ?

All of those particles and objects pushing absolute zero in an expanding Universe, mutually accelerating apart forever, very unsatisfying

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:

Quote:
yet the evidence so far is that the galaxies are moving further and further away from each other , so much for the crunchOf course, absolutely, but doesn’t the prospect leave you with an uncomfortable intuitive reaction

Quote:

no , why would it ?

Quote:

All of those particles and objects pushing absolute zero in an expanding Universe, mutually accelerating apart forever, very unsatisfying

what does this though have to do with the Nature of time ?

1 Reply

@north,

Quote:

what does this though have to do with the Nature of time ?

Dunno North. You asked why I consider Expansion Forever as such a dreary outcome and I replied

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
what does this though have to do with the Nature of time ?
Dunno North. You asked why I consider Expansion Forever as such a dreary outcome and I replied

nothing to do with time though

1 Reply

@north,

Quote:

they don't relise that for nothing to come from nothing means that there was something there in the first place

I think North this was your remark from which all the discussion about Big Bangs etc arose, digression happens

You might elaborate however on "for nothing to come from nothing”. Possibly I might resurrect a meaning from previous posts but I’m just not smart enough and besides I might be wrong

In my own defense however when I suggested that the BB-BC’s might be separated by a moment of nothingness I meant not that nothing was coming from nothing but that something was, which eventually returns to nothing

Thus because its duration is zero whether it could properly be called “nothing” is merely a semantic issue so whether one such arose from the earlier one is also semantic

0 Replies

The nature of time

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know