Before The Big Bang

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by CLPrime

 

I all ready explained a cyclic universe would allow things to travel backwards in time as well but he chooses to ignore that fact.If time and space expanded and shrank then expanded again the universe wouldnt care what direction time moves.In fact we would see things moving backwards as it moved faster then light.

I think we move through time and that the whole 4th dimension which is all of time is stagnate. I dunno where people get the idea time moves at all.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

You might be appalled by some of the things that I accept on faith alone. But science is not a faith-based discipline. That doesn't mean I have no creativity (anyone who knows me well enough could tell you just how creative I can be)...I just don't show it in areas where evidence is required to form opinions.

Of course, there are times when I do seem to have strong opinions without any evidence whatsoever. Like String Theory. I hate it with a passion. No reason...I just do. I much prefer QLG (as described in the OP by ChaoticOrder).

About ST. I don't think there are any strings like tracers of time frames and so forth. I think time is layered like an onion and we move through the layers. I think this because it's obvious that if time actually moved then there would be no relativity. Thinking that time moves is the same as thinking the land moves by you when traveling in a car looking out a side window.

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


No one believes that time moves. Time is a dimension, dimensions don't typically move.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


No...the two are quite different. You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who could take String Theory and morph it into LQG. They're two completely different approaches to quantum physics (one focuses on particle physics, the other focuses on General relativity).

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

No one believes that time moves. Time is a dimension, dimensions don't typically move.

Then why do so many scientist, even those in the field of quantum physics that should know better, use diction in expressing "the movement of time?"

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


I've never heard any physicist use that phrase. In fact, no physicist in his right mind should ever use that phrase. No excepted scientific model involves any sort of moveable temporal dimension.
In General Relativity, the temporal dimension is a metric field, just as the spatial dimensions are. A metric field is a generalized way of giving distance. This means, in GR, distance is expanded to include both space and time. Therefore, there is movement in both space and time. Just as an object moves through space, it also moves through time. And, just as the metric of space can be expanded and contracted (for example, the expansion of the universe, or relativistic length contraction), the metric of time can also be expanded and contracted (though most often expanded, as in relativistic time dilation).

In GR, gravity curves both space and time. This has two effects: 1) it causes a perceived acceleration through space in the direction of the center-of-mass; and 2) it causes a slowing of the perceived passage of time by essentially stretching the distance between each point in time so that it takes "longer" to reach each point.

Obviously, this doesn't involve any sort of movement of time. Objects move through time just as they move through space, and, just as space doesn't move, neither does time.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

I've never heard any physicist use that phrase. In fact, no physicist in his right mind should ever use that phrase. No excepted scientific model involves any sort of moveable temporal dimension.
In General Relativity, the temporal dimension is a metric field, just as the spatial dimensions are. A metric field is a generalized way of giving distance. This means, in GR, distance is expanded to include both space and time. Therefore, there is movement in both space and time. Just as an object moves through space, it also moves through time. And, just as the metric of space can be expanded and contracted (for example, the expansion of the universe, or relativistic length contraction), the metric of time can also be expanded and contracted (though most often expanded, as in relativistic time dilation).

In GR, gravity curves both space and time. This has two effects: 1) it causes a perceived acceleration through space in the direction of the center-of-mass; and 2) it causes a slowing of the perceived passage of time by essentially stretching the distance between each point in time so that it takes "longer" to reach each point.

Obviously, this doesn't involve any sort of movement of time. Objects move through time just as they move through space, and, just as space doesn't move, neither does time.

Alright then, can you define the term "continuum" for me?

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


A continuum is an unbroken series. A curve is continuous if a value for f(x) exists for any Real value of x. A manifold is continuous if a curve drawn on it is continuous.
In General Relativity, the spacetime manifold is continuous through all 4 dimensions. That makes it a continuum.

Continuum is also a new show on Showcase about a time travelling cop from the year 2077. Personally, I am a fan.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

A continuum is an unbroken series. A curve is continuous if a value for f(x) exists for any Real value of x. A manifold is continuous if a curve drawn on it is continuous.
In General Relativity, the spacetime manifold is continuous through all 4 dimensions. That makes it a continuum.

Continuum is also a new show on Showcase about a time travelling cop from the year 2077. Personally, I am a fan.

edit on 13-6-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

In physics, spacetime (or space-time, space time, space-time continuum) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum.

Source> en.wikipedia.org...

a gradual quantitative transition without abrupt changes or discontinuities

Source> en.wikipedia.org... AKA smooth manifold such as a gravity well, single frame by single frame, but not time continuous as one whole unit as modern science claims to define spacetime. That is being viewed one frame to the next even though each frame is too infinitesimal to be defined individually they are still frames nonetheless like frames of a film reel. The view I take on it and you claim also, but modern science does not is viewing spacetime as a whole single unit that you and I move across or through rather. So the idea is that time as a whole is like a complete film reel from beginning to end is not what modern science claims at all, they claim time is fluid. Not waves that are frames of reference upon an ocean of spacetime, but time flowing like a river of water and frames of reference are like the stationary rocks in that river as time flows past.


You can make excuses and minimize how main school science describes time all you want. It is what it is as it is. They take the view time flows like a river and not a complete "4 dimensional manifold" as you say it is, and you are correct. Time is like an ocean where all the fish called "frames of references" can and do swim at different speeds.

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


I suppose it wouldn't do any good if I told you you're completely misinterpreting the definition of a continuum and its application to spacetime.

Just the fact that the spatial dimensions don't move as you say they believe time does should be a big indication to you that you're wrong about how physicists view time, since space and time are viewed in the same way.

reply to post by CLPrime


Modern physics view spacetime much the same way they view light. They do not believe the future exists as of yet, and the past no longer. Bottom line. That's like taking a cross section, or very thin slice of your "4 dimensional manifold" dumping the rest, a razor thin slice of a cross section of a funnel. So I do understand how the term "continuum" is being employed, within a single frame only existing at any given present time which you say they don't. That modern physics claims acknowledgment of the complete forth dimension. That we travel through time at variable speeds depending on the amount of local mass, but time as a whole, "4 dimensional manifold" is a constant. Modern physics is also of the view that zero time, no time, exists at the center of our galaxy. Now of course there is not enough mass in that local region in the form of a black hole for that to be the case just as light speed of matter could not create a deep enough gravity well to gain enough mass to do the same.

If time stops that particular frame of reference becomes the whole of time and therefore everything contained within space and time that's ever existed, all presents being one. Every photon is one and all present frames of time that for always simultaneously exist, continuously, are contained within one single "zero time" frame of reference. A completed forth dimension of our universe, the primeval atom. All that was past present future is then contained within no area at all but nonetheless still does exist. Modern physics cannot conceive such a concept. They view a process, not a completed process that is a constant. They compare frames of references within the whole of the 4th dimension, but still only see spacetime traveling like a beam of light across a vast distance of nothing acting out a sort of developing process, a manufacturing process, converting the future into the present. In the sense of the Universe being a factory that make presents out of the raw material of the future. Yeah, silly.

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


Physicists don't take a thin slice of the 4-dimensional spacetime manifold. They say that objects move through time in the same way as they move through space. To say that viewing an object at a single instant (the present) means discarding the rest of the temporal dimension is like saying that viewing an object at a single location means discarding the rest of space.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

Physicists don't take a thin slice of the 4-dimensional spacetime manifold.

They derive from the math taking on the view that only the prest exixts, that past did exist, but not anylonger, and the future does not exist at all. Check what is the "Event Horizon" for just one example of this view en.wikipedia.org... that is like that's a 'slice of the 4 dementional manifold in its complete form, all time as one, zero time.

Originally posted by CLPrime They say that objects move through time in the same way as they move through space.

That is the same as claiming only the edge of the Universe exists.

Originally posted by CLPrime To say that viewing an object at a single instant (the present) means discarding the rest of the temporal dimension is like saying that viewing an object at a single location means discarding the rest of space.

That's exactly what modern physics claims. That even though they combined the functions of both space and time together that only the present can exist in any given instant comparing two or more frames of reference. Lets say a clock is closer to a gravity well than one that is further away in using gravitational time dilation for this illustration. The clock that is closer moves slower than the one further away, but they always exist at the same time within the mutually shared present that both have to share together. One does not enter any sort of time machine disappearing into the past or the future, both always coexists at the same time just they are on different ratios in moving through time. Just as it is true using this analogy, where I can have a hundred sheets of paper stacked aside a hundred sheets of plywood both of the same width and length in having every sheet of paper correspond with each sheet of plywood. However they are of different thicknesses just as the different rates of two objects moving through time at different rates. One frame of reference has to traverse a deeper gravity well, the other closer to it taking longer to move across, or through time than the one located further away from the well that is traversing the well at a shallower depth, traversing the edge of it in other words, but both move across, or through space at the same observable rates. Both frames exist always in each present just as in the paper/plywood analogy. With each sheet of paper and plywood both exist simultaneously, but one is simply thicker than the other even though they are both the same width and length. So time is to depth as space is to length width. The present is any given sheet of paper and plywood individually.

Now, modern physics, theoretical physicists, believe, or take on the view, based on their collective interpretation of the math that the other 99 sheets of paper and plywood, so to speak, cannot exist anywhere as only one sheet of paper and plywood can exist at any given present time. That is the 4th dimension is not a completed whole dimensional plane. That it is a dimension that is still under construction as nearest future is converted into present, but is also destroying itself as the present is converted, or destroyed, into the past so it will never ever become a completed "4 dimensional manifold." A time well.

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

They derive from the math taking on the view that only the prest exixts, that past did exist, but not anylonger, and the future does not exist at all. Check what is the "Event Horizon" for just one example of this view en.wikipedia.org... that is like that's a 'slice of the 4 dementional manifold in its complete form, all time as one, zero time.

At the event horizon, the temporal metric is infinitely expanded. That means, for an external observer, the measured passage of time at the event horizon stops. For something falling into the black hole, the measured passage of time goes on just fine.

They say that objects move through time in the same way as they move through space.

That is the same as claiming only the edge of the Universe exists.

What?

To say that viewing an object at a single instant (the present) means discarding the rest of the temporal dimension is like saying that viewing an object at a single location means discarding the rest of space.

That's exactly what modern physics claims.

No. It's not.

... Now, modern physics, theoretical physicists, believe, or take on the view, based on their collective interpretation of the math that the other 99 sheets of paper and plywood, so to speak, cannot exist anywhere as only one sheet of paper and plywood can exist at any given present time. That is the 4th dimension is not a completed whole dimensional plane. That it is a dimension that is still under construction as nearest future is converted into present, but is also destroying itself as the present is converted, or destroyed, into the past so it will never ever become a completed "4 dimensional manifold." A time well.

You still don't seem to understand this concept of an object moving through time in the same way as it moves through space. It doesn't have anything to do with anything being "under construction" in the future or "destroyed" in the past. It has to do with a physical object moving from one instant in time to another, just as it can move from one location to another. All of time exists in the spacetime manifold, but a physical object only exists at a given spacetime coordinate (x,y,z,t). Just as an object can move through the x, y, and/or z directions, it also moves through the t direction.

If you wanted you could even wrap spacetime up like a torus (as you have in your theory). The only difference would be, instead of doing the same things over and over and over again, the same total energy would continuously cycle through a creation and destruction phase with no contraint on having the same events happen with each cycle.

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


And may I add. The "4 dimensional manifold" of time could be shaped more like a doughnut than a vortex. If you take two vortexes and invert them point to point you will get the smooth continuous surface of the inner part of this doughnut of time, but also stretch the edges to meet on the outside, and an equator of time will appear. If this is true we then must be traveling through spacetime across a surface area toward that equator, and why the Universe seems to be looking as if it is currently expanding and accelerating from within all points of references inside the Universe. So once all points of references reach this equator sanctimoniously then the Universe should look as if it is collapsing into itself from that point in time after.

I think one poster on this thread has mentioned about a time reversal point. However I don't think all things that have happened in the Universe, if such a case is true, a literal time reversal being like hitting the rewind on a video cassette for example, but rather a continuation of time forward just from an different observation point that's all. In the same sense as when you pass the equator going south from the northern hemisphere, the Earth's rotation does not change direction of spin as you pass its equator, just the perspective of observation changes.

reply to post by CLPrime


I'll reply in detail later.

You know you are in conflict with modern physics. They only recognize the existence of the present. You claim I don't understand what they are claiming. I do. Well enough to know they claim time can never exist except the present time. That means the whole of the 4th dimension can never exist according to their dominate school of thought.

You see you are actually into sting as ChaoticOrder suggested. You say you aren't. I think it can be concluded now that you definitely are into string theory. Modern physics is not though. Because they don't believe that all presents that at least ever existed, do, simultaneous exist, or even two presents can sanctimoniously exist even though particles can and do skip in an out of existence, or rather skip from one frame of present to others out of the usual continuous smooth flow of chronological sequences along the curve surface of your choice of description of all time being a "4 dimensional manifold." The law of energy conservation of course prohibits anything of the same to occupy more than one present at the same time, so they skip around to different near present frames of time. It's pretty obvious what is occurring, but supposedly according to modern physics, its dominate school of thought, only one present eve can exist. I say all do. I think you believe that too. You insist that modern physics does also, and I just don't see any publications supporting they do.

reply to post by dragonridr


What would you cal the space out side were you state that space must end?
Wouldnt that be some kind off space?

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

Before "The Big Bang" was a big crunch. The Universe recreates itself over and over again.

But when did that cycle start and where did the energy come from? There needs to a logical reason why such a cycle would initiate. My theory does describe a cycle of sorts, however it explains where the energy required for that cycle comes from (negative energy) as well as why the energy comes into existence (space-time turbulence).

Exactly!
You gotta start some where right ? And no matter how many explanations scientist come up with there will always be the question of.."Well, then where did that come from?" In an endless loop.

PS: Im atheist, I believe we will fond the answers someday.

Really great (:
Very intersting, as well as well written.

Asking what happened before the big bang is like asking what happened before the beginning of the game i'm playing on my pc right now.

This universe is just a subset inside a more encompassing reality. To leave this universe is to come back to true reality. This is just a big mathematical simulation of experience that can be compared to an infinitely detailed video game where consciousness is thrown into the mix. What happened before the big bang isn't even really an important question. A better question would be what is 'outside' of the so called physical? What is the greater reality that this is a subset of?