If in a block universe, all time exists all of the time, then:
At the very instant of the "Big Bang", space-time's final fate was achieved instantaneously.
Therefore:
If space-time's ultimate fate were to collapse back in upon itself?
Wouldn't that create a “Space-Time Singularity”, within which “observers” experience flow?
No effect can happen instantaneously. All actions are limited to the speed of light in vacuum.Originally Posted by StuartL
That only applies within space-time. It's more of a "flow" thing.
Oh, and the same holds true no matter the ultimate fate of the dimension.
But if space-time doesn't collapse back in upon itself...
You have created a singularity of time itself.
Word salad. You are a master chef in serving them.
You refer to my threads as “word salads”, and yet none of the people who have read any of them, appear to have been able to fault either the logic or the physics. You thought that you me had here, but...
All that I have done is to simplify things:
Why is matter only there when it's observed? - Simple
How do twinned particles “communicate” faster than the speed of light? - Simple
What was there before the “Big Bang”? - Simple
My other “word salads”, or simplified models, do have the added benefit of a potential, truly happy, eternal life probably in a “Here”, in which you can do anything, as long as it's truly just.
All judgment free, and entirely of your own freewill.
My stumbling block was that you've never heard of time singularities, let alone potential future time properties (time singularities), so now I've demonstrated them for you. Logically.
Well, not my only stumbling block, dealing with “belief” is much harder.
If you don't know the answer, ask the question.
Don't just say “That's not what I was taught in school.”.
Oh, and if I'm correct, then a space-time singularity can contain sentience (us). Therefore; it is logical to conclude that an "Imaginary Time" singularity can do the same.
Actually, they did. You, in typical crank fashion, are in perpetual denial.
If you'd care to point out where you feel that this has occurred, I'd be happy to address it.
No, you would simply post more crankeries.
I think I see what may be going on...
You're still stuck in space-time as it were.
The speed of light in a vacuum is a limiting factor in space-time, not in nothing. Don't equate a vacuum filled with the fabric of space-time, with nothing.
Also, given that real-time and imaginary-time are at right angles, any event within one, takes but an instant within the other.
That's how the whole thing works.
If we take everything that there is, and I mean everything, and crush it down into a singularity, time itself stops. - Imaginary-time has stopped ticking.
But what will it do next?
It has an almost infinite number of possible choices.
Its choices come in the form of potential future properties, like the space-time one demonstrated above.
This isn't a space-time physics thing, it's a big picture thing.
Right on cue, another crankery :-)
You clearly have no clue what "event" is. You need to stop posturing.Also, given that real-time and imaginary-time are at right angles, any event within one, takes but an instant within the other.
Event - NOUN
a thing that happens, especially one of importance.
-
-
-
physics
a single occurrence of a process, e.g. the ionization of one atom.
Also, you do know that here, both space and time are “woven together”, space and time? I'm talking about time itself, in...wait for it...Nothing. No speed limiting factors.
I'm no fool, I know that all of this is totally “out there”. I know you all probably think that I'm quite, quite, mad, but where's the fatal flaw? What makes me wrong? Where is the error?
Why don't any of you really clever “physicsy types” destroy my argument, so that I can forget all about it and move on?
Yup, if you could only show me why not...
http://www.thephysicsforum.com/perso...-possible.html
Einstein wasn't taught that e-mc2 in school, but that didn't make him close his mind to new ideas.
Really, really, odd, doesn't necessarily mean wrong.
How many times have I heard physicists point out, just how odd something they've discovered is?
Anyway...
Oh, and grammar and spelling don't count, unless...Well you know...
You posts demonstrate to opposite of your claim above. Find a different hobby, physics is not for you.
Oh and dark matter and dark energy are probably a little bit of a cheat to balance space-time. That is to say that...
They are not a part of the fabric of space-time itself per say, but that they do provide an opportunity for “recipe refinement”, as it were.
Therefore; given that they are not woven into the fabric of space-time itself, they cannot directly interact with or be “observed” by observers within space-time.
Pure speculation there, may be wrong, you tell me.
If we all step back for a few seconds and think about what has happened here so far.
Some "nut" has proposed the simplest possible model of “everything”, which also gives simple answers to the questions:
Why is matter only there when it is “observed”?
If a multiverse containing all possible dimensions exists, and a dimension that isn't part of a multiverse is possible...How can a multiverse exist?
How do twinned particles seemingly “communicate” with each other faster than the speed of light?
What are “dark matter” and “dark energy”?
And...Only 38 people, out of 961 people, have even bothered reading my other thread.
GOSH.
Last edited by StuartL; 08-01-2019 at 04:33 PM.
Yep.
Free your mind.
Of your garbage? It is already free.
Get back to me when you can prove that the “Big Bang” actually happened. Until then, I'll stick to my belief system, and you can stick to yours. Oh wait, I don't automatically reject your beliefs, they're entirely possible, but then again, so are mine. Plus to be honest, I don't really "believe" either, I'm awaiting proof, prior to selection either way. Like with religion, theists and atheists have made a choice, without first having either proof, or all of the information. I'm agnostic myself.
Oh, and remember, the ONLY thing that you can EVER prove EVER, is:
“I think, therefore I am”
And you can only prove that to yourself.
But you may be able to prove the “Big Bang” thing to the satisfaction of your peers at least.
I'll wait.
Meh, I doubt I can educate you, one can never educate a crank. Read here. Go away, stop polluting the forum.
If you will allow me just this one last post, I'll be done. If you still can't see it after this, there really isn't any point in me continuing with this. I'll just have to concluded that it's pointless, “You just can't see the forest for the trees.”.
There are two last problems, that I'm aware of, that you encounter with your model of space-time:
The stream of single electrons fired through a slit creating a wave pattern.
Light behaving both as a particle and a wave.
In your complex model, these are “head-scratchers”, in mine...
The past few days it has been sunny so I have the blinds almost closed. A couple of days ago I noticed that when I closed my eyes, the impression of vertical slits was burnt into my retina. This made me think of that single electron vertical slit wave pattern thingy. Honestly, I had always assumed that it was just part of the whole matter not really being there until it is observed thingy. But what the heck. I lay down with my cat for a bit to think...
Remember now, in my model, time and matter are woven together, but separate. I we assume that space-time is perfectly balanced: Picture in your mind's eye a nutshell, with a tiny, tiny, nut at its centre. The nutshell is the matter, the nut time (bad pun there).
Now...
In about three minutes I had the following:
If matter and time are mirror images of each other, then:
When you fire a single electron through the slit, it interacts with its “mirrored” counterpart (still woven together – fabric of space-time), and thus creates the wave pattern.
Is this why light acts both as a particle and a wave?
Umm...
I told you, “Stick with me kid, and I'll show you perfection.”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGJuMBdaqIw
Find a different hobby.
I hate to admit it dear friend, but I think that you just hit the nail on the head there.
I've given you the simplest possible model of “Life the Universe and Everything”. With simple solutions to:
Why light behaves both as a particle and a wave
Why a single electron (stream), produces a wave pattern
Spooky action at a distance
Why matter is only there when it is observed
How a multiverse of all possible dimensions, including one that is not part of a multiverse
And...Oh, yes.
It's eternal, as could we have been. Well we sorta are anyway, the (Conception - Death - Conception...) merry-go-round.
I was going to add a link to a video, but what's the point?
Clearly you're all happy with your lot, and I'm stuck with being happy regardless. That may sound odd, but I've obviously failed, and hopefully, at some point in the future, someone will come along and do it right (cross-fingers). If not, I've had a hoot this past eleven and a half years, so I've got this to look forward to again, not that I'll know it of course.
Anyway...
Take care.
Catch you on the flip-side.
I love you.
You have some serious delusions, seek psychiatric help.
The story of the film so far:
You have a theory.
I have a theory.
The Earth's finest minds spent the last fifty years attempting to prove your theory.
Your theory is still full of holes.
It took me all of three minutes to figure out why light behaves like both a particle and a wave.
My theory is pure perfection.
Now one would think, that in such a case, further investigation into my theory would be warranted, and yet apparently...I'm the nut.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkgkThdzX-8
Here's the further investigation btw.
http://www.thephysicsforum.com/perso...-possible.html
No, you have a crankery. And a trollery.
The only thing you got right.I'm the nut.
| « Crystal Symmetry Problem, Conductivity tensor |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks