3
   

What happens when time stop?

 
 
5D
 
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 11:26 am
If time stops, then air molecules would refuse to move or at an atomic level, energy will vibrate at a slower frequency. If I'm a time stopper, then the earth would've stop spinning and does it mean I will be floating, no gravity?

I was thinking about the science behind this after watching a short film from youtube: http://youtu.be/1xRjIGcIL9c
 
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 11:46 am
@5D,
5D that's really a good q and one I've long pondered

(The casual observer should skip the film, it's very long and seems to deal with time in a very unscientific way, using another language)

Presumably "before" the Big Bang time was stopped when supposedly there was nothing at all. But this scenario has snags, almost requires a God capable of doing the impossible, with all sorts of attendant inconsistencies, contradictions, paradox entailed in Creation

The cycling scenario not needing Her and dispatching many of those difficulties starts with a ball of uniform consistency but tiny (zero?) diameter though huge (infinite?) mass, of uncertain duration (zero?) during which time is stopped but this is the only condition under which it occurs so your q may have no meaning whatever

I haven't been following the very latest, but for the sake of anyone not familiar with the Big Cycle, it's followed by Expansion (Big Bang), Organization (including evolution of the humanoid), Cooling (including expansion), then Reversal and Contraction ( the Big Crunch) until once more the tiny ball, etc etc

….the idea of infinity being dispatched by the somewhat difficult-to-picture notion of there being no "outside"

The typical religious form of Creation of course being unnecessary since She's been cycling around forever. Ergo, no inconsistency, paradoxe, contradiction
rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 02:01 pm
@5D,
If time stops (and you are included in the stoppage) then you won't be able to do anything or even think a thought. Nothing else that we do or perceive has any definition without the flow of time.
dalehileman
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 02:26 pm
@rosborne979,
Yea Ros and time without space and matter or vv might be meaningless

Have you not wondered if there's a God and She created time and space whether She might have required time and space in which to do so

..or at least time
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 03:06 pm
@dalehileman,
It would require time to act and space to order a plan...
Better to think of God as a statical mathematical frame with everything in it who doesn't move...including space and time.
Movement is a inside illusion the relation of subsets with subsets in the mathematical expressions...Perhaps 1 dimensional space and information are the only thing real...1 dimension and information is all it takes to describe more dimensions of space and time itself as stuff and energy...
AtheisticMaterialist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Dec, 2013 11:30 pm
@5D,
I agree with Ros in that if time stopped than nothing could happen. If nothing can happen than there is no way that time could ever resume again. I also believe that time will probably stop eventually because even something as unlikely as all the force in the world canceling each other out, is highly probable in the vastness of time. (I personally believe that time has gone on infinitely leading up until now, and that god does not exist)
Deaths Bane
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2013 08:07 am
@dalehileman,
Before the Big Bang there was another Big Bang, and another before that, and yet another one before that Big Bang. Time is looped, it starts and ends in the same place. Directly before each Big Bang is an equal Big Crunch, and they just keep on rolling out with identical results.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2013 12:50 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
Better to think of God as a statical mathematical frame with everything in it who doesn't move...including space and time.
The pantheist, in oder to avoid so much dualistic paradox and contradiction, maintains this frame includes also moving matter
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2013 12:55 pm
@AtheisticMaterialist,
Quote:
I agree with Ros in that if time stopped than nothing could happen.
Mat, toward the last of the Big Crunch when the tiny particle approaches zero (?) diameter and max (infinite?) mass we ask if now time stops just before the next BB. But the q itself might be meaningless since that instant might be of zero duration
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2013 01:04 pm
@Deaths Bane,
Before the Big Bang there was another Big Bang, and another before that, and yet another …...Directly before each Big Bang is an equal Big Crunch…...,[/quote]Pretty much (I thought) as I had said


Quote:
and they just keep on rolling out with identical results.
Now here's where we differ. Intuitively doubting the theory of absolute repetition I've repeatedly approached this issue as a purely mathematical q, as yet unanswered. But the gut feeling is that each succeeding Universe, though following the same necessary rules (in spite of the notion that anything that can happen will happen, repeatedly if given forever) is vastly different from the one preceding
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 09:07 am
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
Better to think of God as a statical mathematical frame with everything in it who doesn't move...including space and time.
The pantheist, in oder to avoid so much dualistic paradox and contradiction, maintains this frame includes also moving matter


Can you understand the metaphor of a sequence of light bulbs lighting up one after the other ? Was there any real movement going on ?
Now what I am trying to convey is that a mathematical system with laws constants n patterns can be a "light bulb" in a larger string of mathematical bulbs in which movement is a simulated effect. If you jump from the idea of "bulbs" to pictures in a film, these mathematical systems change over time. That is, the picture after the next is slightly different from the previous one but mainly similar. When we talk about spacetime as a unified concept like Einstein did, the appeal of such idea becomes evident. You see motion is in itself problematic because motion destroys equilibriums, motion is irrational, motion ideally needs to be reducible to no motion. I am trying to do just that. The hint or the clue that speaks up against the concept of motion is to realize that an expanding Universe needs expanding within other dimensions of space. If you jump one level up and ask the same question regarding the Multiverse then you are confronted with an evolving, moving Multiverse which also requires explaining.
I cannot conceive of motion if not in an enclosed system with a finite number of variables. Such motion can be reduced to a "film" or a mathematical sequence of a looping/cycling system with several states of description, "frames".
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 10:23 am
It's like asking what would happen if you had been born a tree. Time won't stop, so there is no answer within science.
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 11:30 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Thank hyou Fil for attempting to clarify. If however

Quote:
...an expanding Universe needs expanding within other dimensions of space.
is crucial to your argument, I must strongly dissent. Occam's Razor would seem to suggest there just aren't any such dimensions, that an expanding Universe requires nothing to expand "into" because there's nuttin' outside, no space, nuttin'; there just isn't any outside

Of course I csn't defend myself "scientifically", it's only the old intuition at work. Otherwise, again thank you for trying, but the notion hat

Quote:
motion ideally needs to be reducible to no motion


….Im sure meaningful but not much help to an old fart like me
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 03:00 pm
@dalehileman,
You see I am not saying the opposite. I am making a case that movement is an illusion. Because expansions within expansions within expansions project the case into an infinite progress of Universes within Universes without much explaining anything as all the same problems repeat one level up. If you have been following my reasoning somehow in this n similar threads you must have noticed I've been saying exactly that an expanding space to be possible would require extra dimensions of space so to have extra degrees of freedom. Which means that progression of space into nothingness is IMPOSSIBLE !
My point is that there is no true motion no true expansion and that the all spacetime is already settled in a self enclosed loop, a circle of past present n future where the extreme future leads to the conditions of the extreme past and repeats.. If you look at the Universe out of spacetime it doesn't grow or expand it is done and it is motionless. Its a damn 4D film. Probably using Occam's razor this 4 dimensions can be reduced to 1 single dimension, a mathematical binary string of information a super system of systems. Using the latest ideas for metaphor the 4D world is like an hologram a projection of this string but within the string description.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 03:22 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Please notice I am not denying inflation, once inflation is a phenomena observed within spacetime from one moment in relation to the next. I have no doubts about observations upon distant galaxies as they were in the past and the red shifting are good proof of inflation prompted by black matter in intergalactic space. What I am saying is that all space times exist as if in "different frequencies". When you assemble all these frames together they form a loop with the all history of the Universe. This loop consists of the far future super entropic conditions of the Universe ending up giving rise from quantum fluctuations to a new Big Bang. It repeats within itself. Its a damned film and seen as a whole it does not move. It does not need miraculous motion, expansion into nothingness which makes no sense.
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 03:23 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Sorry Fil but I'm still in the dark, wondering if you--or anyone following your argument could couch it in terms familiar to the Everyday Slob (me) and in a common order usual to our everyday chatting

The first few words

Quote:
Because expansions within expansions within expansions project the case into an infinite progress of Universes within Universes
leave me cold since, if indeed down here on the smaller scale we're even expanding at all, I don't see how our expansion, implies "other" Universes

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101013220223AAoOdzV

Quote:
….to have extra degrees of freedom. Which means that progression of space into nothingness is IMPOSSIBLE !
I still don't see why it has to expand into something
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 03:28 pm
@dalehileman,
Because our expansion, the growth of space requires that such growth grows into something else which itself needs be space. It needs have axis of motion.
Nothingness if anything would work like a wall around the Universe preventing any sort of motion outwards. Motion requires space, but when you say the space itself moves, then that space requires a higher degree of space dimensions so itself the space can move within other form of space...You cannot do this forever because this begs the question, it explains nothing, you just bring the problem one level up.
This elegant reasoning hints big time that motion is probably a simulated effect as in the example of the lamp bulbs lighting up in sequence like in an big building advertisement, instead of being something real in its own right.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 03:57 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Bottom line, my point is that this is not just a model of the Universe. This is a philosophical model for modelling Universes in whatever way Astrophysics Cosmology Quantum Physics sees fit as they evolve their own descriptions and observations of Reality. This is a abstract model for modelling or conceiving of evolving (moving) Universes whatever they are and however they happen to work.

My model assumes a few axioms as being true:

- Space is quantized. (corpuscular)
- There are no true infinities. (only loops)
- A final system of systems is a loop
- There is no true motion
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 04:01 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
the growth of space requires that such growth grows into something else which itself needs be space.
Sorry Fil but this doesn't make much sense. If the Universe is all there is, it doesn't include anything outside itself, not even space. I can't see anything wrong with its expanding anyhow

Thus before the next BB "during" that instant of "zero duration" there's nothing anywhere, not even space
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 04:10 pm
@dalehileman,
No no no...You and Cosmologists need very clearly explain how expansion of space can expand if not within another spatial dimension. There was never an observation of something moving/growing outside space. This is a gratuitous inference without any logic.
If space itself grows it needs growing into something else which in the least is another dimension. Unless you don't understand how dimensions of space work and how movement works within those, in which case I recommend you to check out. My advise is to read what I have wrote more carefully, you seam to be confusing what I say.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What happens when time stop?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/21/2019 at 01:09:43