11

# Temporal kinetics and the creation of the universe

Tue 22 Apr, 2014 06:33 am
I have been pondering the start of the universe, the nature of time-space and how the universe began. I then created the formula T=A/O*(-1) [It would not let me use superscript for the -1].

Now let me first explain, Einstein said that there were always 3 states due to relativity, past, present & future. With this Formula applying the values differently based on the state, provides answers to what i think is a understanding principle about creation.

Past: A (alpha) = -1 (as we are before the start event)
O (omega) = 1 (as the start of something is the end point of before nothing)

Hence: T = -1/1*(-1) Or simply 1. This means that we have created a something from nothing, or in terms time has existed due to the concept that time in the future also exists.

Present: A = 0, O = 0 There is never a start or an end to a present, the moment is so exact that the idea of it being a unit does not apply i.e. Achilles & the hare
So T = 0 as quite literally 'there is no time like the present'

Future: A = 1, O = ∞ There is an infinite amount of 'present' frames in the future so the equation then provides the result;
T = ∞

Now I'm not a mathematician or a scientist but a philosopher, so i can only put across a simple understanding of what i mean. Essentially is it possible that time has some kinetic energy, enough that an infinite amount of energy can be stored into a single frame of time, which when subjected to the notion of a present is gone. Hence considering how particles are able to borrow energy from the future and pay it back would explain the enormous amount of energy required to start the big bang without any matter necessary to do so, at a point where nothing existed.

Is that possible?

p.s. This then relates to my ideas on how quantum particles are not subjected to a notion of the present but are moving at such speeds they are only experiencing the future and the past until they are interacted with. Though i need more thinking before i formulate a question on that.
• Topic Stats
• Top Replies
Type: Question • Score: 11 • Views: 6,059 • Replies: 68
No top replies

Brandon9000

2
Tue 22 Apr, 2014 04:46 pm
If I gave you a basic high school physics problem, you couldn't do it, so why do you think you can do physics at the state of the art? Why do you think that you can skip ahead of the 40 physics classes that real physicists have to take to have a prayer of getting this stuff right?
0 Replies

2
Tue 22 Apr, 2014 05:06 pm
@Kouq,
Perhaps you should look up zero divided by zero.
JLNobody

1
Tue 22 Apr, 2014 05:19 pm
Or infinity divided by infinity?
0 Replies

dalehileman

1
Tue 22 Apr, 2014 05:51 pm
@Kouq,
Quote:
T=A/O*(-1) [It would not let me use superscript for the -1].
You might have to clarify this, Kouq. If the * is supposed to be a superscript (0n my keyboard, ^) then isn' t T=O/A

For us hopelessly dumb bunnies you'll have to explain exactly what's meant by O and A
0 Replies

Ding an Sich

2
Tue 22 Apr, 2014 07:10 pm
@Kouq,
Just stop. Do some actual physics and read up on the material before parading this nonsense around. Philosophy is already bad as it is.
0 Replies

1
Mon 19 May, 2014 09:54 pm
@Kouq,
Don't attempt to create formulas.We have all we need. The problem here is mathematic.It is a temporal aspect thar requires following aspects to result true existence,But the thing is we couldn't call this complete construct math now could we.Physicist are not ready to accept that ,not even admit that.

0 Replies

IanRust

1
Tue 20 May, 2014 04:56 am
@Kouq,
The number zero is not part of the natural number set. It presumes positive and negative numbers. So your +1 & -1 are already included in your idea of the void, being zero. The true void is infinite. From there the natural number set begins with 1. 1 is related to infinite, and the natural numbers continue to scale, 2, 3, 4, etc. approaching infinite, while (paradoxically) also distancing from infinite. Thus positive & negative are simultaneous attributes of natural numbers.
0 Replies

dalehileman

1
Tue 20 May, 2014 10:50 am
@Kouq,
Quote:
Einstein said that there were always 3 states due to relativity, past, present & future….a something from nothing….
OT but suggesting an interesting issue. If the Universe comes into existence from nothingness, then it's wrong to assert that "Before Creation was Nothingness," because nothingness doesn't include time; there just simply isn't a "before"
Brandon9000

1
Wed 21 May, 2014 04:31 pm
@dalehileman,
What's wrong with it is that there is a large body of actual physics on this topic and you don't know it.
dalehileman

1
Wed 21 May, 2014 04:39 pm
@Brandon9000,
Alas, Bran, alack
0 Replies

Brandon9000

1
Wed 21 May, 2014 05:20 pm
It's fun to think about, but I cannot reasonably claim that I am as fit to provide medical theories as a doctor, having never studied medicine.
dalehileman

1
Thu 22 May, 2014 11:01 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
...having never studied medicine
I presume Bran you have reference to my never having studied cosmological physics. In my gross ignorance and old age however I nonetheless claim the dubious privilege of such a philosophical remark regarding the concept of duration

….which you are of course entirely welcome to dispute

My qualifications embrace a general interest in this sort of thing though they do include a single philo course in my BSJ; just think of it. Oh and I remember a freshman physics course

However Bran It does, somewhat OT, entail a fascinating (to me) speculation that the culmination of a Big Crush is a "nothingness" of infinite mass (time therefore stopped) but zero diameter

0 Replies

Brandon9000

1
Thu 22 May, 2014 07:28 pm
Yes, go ahead, and it's fun. However, let's not completely forget that there is actual physics theory about the subject you are speculating about. An Art History major can speculate about how the immune system works without ever taking a biology course, or how magnetism works without taking a physics course, or how computers work without taking a computer engineering course and that is certainly his right, however, there are specialists in the world who know many of the actual answers.
dalehileman

1
Fri 23 May, 2014 11:27 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
there is actual physics theory about the subject you are speculating about
Thanks Bran, I'm sure there is

For an old fella however whose reading is falling behind and yardwork lagging I wonder if you could briefly summarize it in terms how it relates to my posting

Thanks most kindly
0 Replies

Brandon9000

1
Fri 23 May, 2014 12:02 pm
I don't know the answer. Even with two degrees in physics, it's over my head. Furthermore, someone who really did know this material could only give laymen the baby talk version.
dalehileman

1
Fri 23 May, 2014 12:09 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
who really did know this material could only give laymen the baby talk version.
That's what I need, Bran, the baby talk
Brandon9000

1
Fri 23 May, 2014 01:57 pm
@dalehileman,
As I said, I don't know it. It's complicated. It takes physicists years of study to learn.
dalehileman

1
Fri 23 May, 2014 04:26 pm
@Brandon9000,
Yet Bran I'd bet their views could easily be condensed into language suitable for the Typical Dolt (me)

S., if you're about why not have a go at it
Brandon9000

1
Fri 23 May, 2014 04:29 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Yet Bran I'd bet their views could easily be condensed into language suitable for the Typical Dolt (me)

S., if you're about why not have a go at it

You still don't get it. This is actual knowledge, not philosophy. I cannot condense it for you because I don't understand it myself. It takes years of study to understand. It's not some BS you can skim and then know something about. How about you summarizing differential geometry on Grassmann algebras for me?

### 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. » Temporal kinetics and the creation of the universe