3
   

What happens when time stop?

 
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 04:25 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Now as I have said previously, the challenge is not to deny observations about inflation, but rather to change perspective, to change the model explaining inflation, since in fact we observe an expansion of space itself taking place with all the galaxies going apart from each other by red shifting. Now if space itself is growing we should indeed ask with property, spacetime is growing within what ? In the least this "what" needs be a spatial dimension. In any case the final system of systems cannot move and needs account for spacetime itself. We always end up with a motionless reality. I don't care if it is a Universe, a Multiverse of Universes, or a Pluriverse of Multiverses...whatever is the final stage that stage itself is motionless. You can call it the prime n final mover which itself does not move.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 04:35 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
I wont argue for the brilliance of my point n the lack of balls of any viewers around this thread to vote it up when it should be voted up for a simple reason, my point it is obvious !
If anything lacking perception on why it is obvious leaves viewers in a very bad very sad situation for intellectual awareness...
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 05:14 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
No no no...You and Cosmologists
Fil you flatter me

Quote:
need very clearly explain how expansion of space can expand if not within another spatial dimension.
We respond, "Well, why not"

Seems to us (I use "us" most advisably) the problem is one of the humanoid mind not yet capable of imagining anything expanding without something (space) for it to expand into, can't picture in the mind's eye

Quote:
There was never an observation of something moving/growing outside space.
I didn't say there was tho I can't speak for the other fellas. In fact the suggestion sounds strange. How could anything be seen outside space

As I see it anyway, the expression "outside space" somehow doesn't make sense. Somehow I gather our impasse must be largely semantic

Quote:
If space itself grows it needs growing into something else which in the least is another dimension.
I guess what you're saying, Fil, is that what it grows into is some different sort of Universe not containing any space, which seems to contxradict your assertion that it's growing into another kind of space

Quote:
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.
Probably should

Quote:
My advise is to read what I have wrote more carefully, you seam to be confusing what I say.
Alas alack. As I said Fil, no offense, I'm evidently a hopeless case, my seams are frayed
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 05:20 pm
@dalehileman,
What is the contradiction if you don't mind me asking ? What other means of motion is there that do not require dimensions ? an axis like X,Y or Z...there is no semantic problem whatsoever, in fact Newton classic physics is quite enough for the purpose !
The expression "outside space" is purely metaphoric and cynical once I am precisely implying there is nothing outside it, that WAS THE POINT !
Alas alack you don't make the effort. And yes you dribble in confusion on what I say. You never seam to distinguish when I use a metaphor precisely to show how absurd is the claim...whatever is the final medium, Universe, Multiverse, or "Pluriverse", the final stage cannot move and accounts for all other stages on which movement is apparent.
You guys seam to act like nothingness (on which space is supposed to expand) was in fact something but bottom line you just haven't though it through very well.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 05:29 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
...growing within what ? the least this "what" needs be a spatial dimension.
Yes again Fil I hear you clearly. Yet as I had attempted to convey, I have no trouble at all postulating its growth without some other sort of "dimension" for it to grow into

Granted of course I can't see the Whole Shebang in Mind's Eye

It's a simple q: Why does it have to grow into something

Quote:
In any case the final system of systems cannot move
I merely view ours as the "final final system" and of course whether or not it's "moving" depends on how one describes "movement" If expansion is movement, then yes we move, with respect of course, to ourself

I just can't see the need for something outside us. Again Occam

Help, anybody

If however Fil you feel I shouldn't respond, then so advise, no hard feelings, I understand
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 05:32 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
In fact it seams very reasonable to claim in nothingness there aren't any axis of motion.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 05:36 pm
@dalehileman,
No man, of course you should respond I just wish you get the point about time being just another axis like the other 3, the X,Y,Z. Time is the fourth axis. And yes I agree on the Occam principle that we should stick with one term for coinage...Universe is enough...it just so happens that there may be other dimensions beyond our own bubble on which the same kind of problem of spacetime would arise.
I am not claiming we need a Multiverse but rather that if there is a Multiverse the same problem arises. Remember I said "WHATEVER the final medium" it needs to not move.
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 06:03 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
What is the contradiction if you don't mind me asking ?
I'm not sure if there is a contradiction, Fil. You seem to be saying our space is expanding within some other sort of space, and I merely assert there's no need for that other one

Quote:
What other means of motion is there that do not require dimensions ?
Our expansion has dimension, it's within, relative to itself. But now I feel I'm stumbling into the excessively metaphysical. In simple terms it's growing compared to how it was

Quote:
an axis like X,Y or Z...there is no semantic problem whatsoever, in fact Newton classic physics is quite enough for the purpose !
Previous remarks suggest what you're proposing is that an infinite space contains a finite amount of matter, in sort of "ball" we presently call Universe, underestimating its size by virtue of its curvature. Okay could be, but my view is simpler and easier to explain

Quote:
The expression "outside space" is purely metaphoric and cynical once I am precisely implying there is nothing outside it, that WAS THE POINT !
Sorry, yes, metaphor does escape me. Like I had said, at my advanced age I read almost everything literally. But til now I had assumed you had meant there is something outside it, that is, space

Quote:
Alas alack you don't make the effort.
Alas maybe I am incapable of so doing

Quote:
And yes you dribble in confusion on what I say.
Indeed

Quote:
You never seam to distinguish when I use a metaphor precisely to show how absurd is the claim...
I presume you mean my claim. Yes, in your mind's eye you see the Universe as a sort of ball and so if it's growing then it must be growing with respect to something else, I suppose it's that metaphorical space

Quote:
whatever is the final medium, Universe, Multiverse, or "Pluriverse", the final stage cannot move and accounts for all other stages on which movement is apparent.
You might have written this while I was still editing, in which case I apologize profusely. Somewhere above I had addressed this "movement"

Quote:
You guys seam to act like nothingness (on which space is supposed to expand) was in fact something
I had tried really hard not to convey that notion. But now we appear to be back to Square One, where neither of us seems to understand the other

Hence semsntics

Quote:
but bottom line you just haven't though it through very well.
Could be. But [/b]HELP PLEASEsomebody else who does understand
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 06:07 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
In fact it seams very reasonable to claim in nothingness there aren't any axis of motion.
Definitely a semantic issue here. The expression "in nothingness" implies the existence of "something" called "nothingness". But nothingness isn't a place or a condition. There's no such thing as nothingness

Unless at that "instant" of "zeroduration" or "stopped time", infinite mass yet zero dimension; but that's getting 'way deeper into metaphysics than I feel qualified to explore
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 06:12 pm
@dalehileman,
I always meant to say any dimensions of space need a time dimension.
Whether is a Universe a Multiverse or a Pluriverse remarking whatver is the case, we need another axis for time.
Regarding this axis as being intertwined with whatever spatial axis there are one can clearly see motion is an effect as the whole spacetime itself is fixed already. Remember the film metaphor on which all photograms are there in a sequence ? The point I am making is that you just can't see them neither past nor future. Again for purposes of metaphor imagine you can only see what is local the local is a light bulb which is on while past and future are light bulbs which are off...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 06:13 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
In fact it seams very reasonable to claim in nothingness there aren't any axis of motion.
Definitely a semantic issue here. The expression "in nothingness" implies the existence of "something" called "nothingness". But nothingness isn't a place or a condition. There's no such thing as nothingness

Unless at that "instant" of "zeroduration" or "stopped time", infinite mass yet zero dimension; but that's getting 'way deeper into metaphysics than I feel qualified to explore


Exactly, therefore one necessarily concludes no thing can grow/advance into it, as there is no it ! You always need an axis, a DIMENSION, extending outwards so that movement is possible ! That was the point !!!
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 06:15 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil do you mean perhaps that you see the Universe progressing in quantum steps
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 06:17 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
Exactly, therefore no thing can grow advance into it as there is no it ! You always need an axis extending outwards so that movement is possible ! That was the point !!!
Then it was entirely semantics after all

But I'm still in the dark about this other (fourth?) axis, or was it also metaphorical
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 06:18 pm
@dalehileman,
Yes quantized corpuscular frames not continuous infinitely divisible space. I am making a case these steps are all already there, the so said 4 dimension, time itself (not a metaphor), is all there entangled with space in an ensemble. And "we" whatever is local in a given "now" are within all the frames past n future. Your past present n future is distributed within those quantized frames of space time as long as you last.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 06:23 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Bit difficult Fil for me still. Of course the notion of digital universe has been around a long time but are you suggesting absolute determinism

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 06:24 pm
@dalehileman,
I am saying quantized space, (against) (not being the case) of a infinitely divisible space.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 06:27 pm
@dalehileman,
Exactly say no more ! That's where my idea of absolute determinism comes from precisely ! This is at the core of my all philosophy...all would crumble n fall apart if I come to think this is wrong...
That's why I say things like "God" (Einstein's God) does not grow, or does not think, or it cannot change its own process...the all thing is already complete done n over with. Its self trapped self enclosed !
Remember the Alpha n the Omega...the prime mover that does not move. The causer without a cause.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 06:32 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Okay Fil but given the digital argument I run into an objection similar to"outside space", why and how such jumps are caused. Once more, wouldn't Occam prefer an infinitely divisible continuum

I'll agree energy is digital because there's concrete evidence. But time and matter…..
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 06:35 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
The very concept of reason that comes from ratio which means the order in which things really are points to this final motionless reality. That which we instinctively and intuitively call Truth !
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 06:37 pm
@dalehileman,
Matter is an easy one...once matter is energy, remember E=MC2 ? Now digital Universe theories in fact all the modern cosmology like M-Theory, also assumes a quantized space at plank scale...time is the 4 dimension intertwined with space...it follows !
 

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
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/25/2019 at 11:15:34