New Theory: We Live In The Past of a Parallel Universe

a reply to: Astyanax

Time is relative to distance traveled at a specific speed. The closest we can understand time is our lack of perception while asleep. Dreaming dissolves time into its infinite truth. One moment can expand into infinite perception, and be revisited, through conscious memory of unconscious participation. We spend roughly 1/3 of our lives in such a state, and more of our time comtemplating our thoughts, perceived consciously and unconsciously. Time is subject to our system, the immediate system we perceive, Earth and its movement, but 1/3 of that time is of the unconscious, within our Earthly system. Time within time..System within system. When all comes to rest, our bodies, our Planetary system, our singularity of thought, then time is constant, everywhere, therefore, to our observation, does not affect, so it does not exist. Gravity creates motion, or motion propagates gravity, whereas mass is involved...material physics. But when consciousness lets loose of mass, gravity has little impact, like a feeling of a lost limb, it can still affect, through memory of motion. Unconsciousness can still yield though, minimal physical chain, yet physical memory is what binds us to our timeline. If we could turn off the subconsciuos memory of tangible mass, time would become constant and traversable without limits, thereby we would no longer be chained to our physical perception, and we become infinite.

a reply to: Entreri06

It's already been simplified to the point where it's become nonsense, that's the trouble. When you try to simplify something that can't really be simplified, that's what you get: gobbledygook.

Here is the best I can do for you. Arbitrageur, CLPrime, dragonridr or one of the other ATS physics experts can probably do better.

The initial very low-entropy state of the universe looks like an absurd statistical fluke. The odds against it coming about by accident seem to be all but impossible, even given the huge time spans we're dealing with here. What the theoretical work produced by Barbour et al. hopes to show is that such an apparently improbable state is actually inevitable — that under the influence of gravity, given enough time, the universe will naturally fall into an arrangement like the pre-Big Bang singularity — which will then, of course, expand again, gaining entropy.

So this is a cyclic universe. And in this cyclic universe, the arrow of time runs both ways. In the cycle of the universe 'before' ours time ran (from our perspective) backwards, so that their Big Bang would be our Big Crunch, and vice versa. In the next cycle after ours it will run backward again.

You will notice that, in such a scenario, there is no 'correct' direction for time to be moving.

Think about it a bit harder, and you will see that this idea also makes redundant the concept of successive cycles of the universe. There is no need for multiple Big Bangs and Big Crunches. Apart from trivial details, such as the distribution of galaxies and stars, the occurrence of galaxy collisions, supernovas, quasars, etc., successive cycles of the universe are identical in this scenario and can be treated as such mathematically. The cycle collapses into a single loop from BB to BC and back again. And the loop looks the same whether you go round it 'clockwise' or 'anticlockwise'. It is time-symmetric. The problem of entropy, the 'arrow of time', simply vanishes.

Imagine another being just like yourself, sharing the same body, experiencing the world through the same senses, thinking with the same brain, but living an existence in which time runs in the opposite direction. A world, as the novelist Martin Amis visualized in Time's Arrow, in which people in restaurants unchew food in their mouths, pick it out and arrange it on the plates in front of them using their knives and forks, and waiters take it away. And in the toilet... you don't want to think about what happens in the toilet.

a reply to: Boscov

Dreaming dissolves time into its infinite truth.

Yet when the alarm rings, and I wake up, eight hours have passed.

But when consciousness lets loose of mass

Please. We are discussing science here, not magic.

Yes the mirror universe with the reversal of all time and space! Sounds to me like a big crunch!

dont know if its been posted yet cuz i just skimmed through, but this really reminds me of the bashar? channelled material, they talked about being in a negative version of our universe does anybody remember that?

a reply to: FlyersFan

The problem I see is that if 2 branches are likely, possible or true, then also likely would be an infinite number of branches which kinda fits in with quantum mechanics by some definitions. At every decision point universes would split off that reflected all possible outcomes. For recently created universes we would be virtual parrallels, but for older (previously branched) we would see (if we could) potentially huge differences.

a reply to: Astyanax


Well put, but consider this: If an infinite number of universes exist, each branching off from another at key "decision" points reflecting all possible outcomes, the fact that intelligent life exists in a universe that seems, improbably, virtually perfect for life is inevitable. For those universes whose conditions would not support life, of course there would be no one around to remark on the improbability....

Only the universes which could support life would produce life....

Not sure I expressed that clearly...

Another thing too: I do not believe that our universe is expanding at accelerated rates.

The farther out we see, the farther back in time we are seeing, so to speak. At vastlly earlier times our universe would, indeed, have been expanding at higher rates.

It is my understanding (which may or may not be correct) that the evidence of an increasingly rapid expansion is seen at increasingly distant ... distances lol. In other words, there is nothing we see in our immediate "neighborhood" which reflects an increasingly rapid expansion. It seems to me that what has been seen, would be in reverse (more expansion locally, vs at great distances) if the universe were, indeed, expanding at ever increasing rates.

The result, IMO, would be that the potential for expansion followed by contraction as the cyle of the universe would be back to possible. Big bang, followed by expansion, followed by contraction, followed by big crunch, followed by big bang etc....

a reply to: bbracken677

if 2 branches are likely... then also likely would be an infinite number of branches which kinda fits in with quantum mechanics by some definitions.

In Barbour's earlier view of the universe, spacetime is a configuration space in which all possible arrangements of matter and energy are always present, and probability determines which configurations are actualized successively to our perception (though his book, The End of Time, is a bit vague on how that occurs). It is a different interpretation of the implications of Schrödinger's wave equation from the Many Worlds one that supposes branchings of spacetime every time a probabilty field collapses. As far as I can tell, one eliminates the need for the other.

*

a reply to: bbracken677

It is my understanding (which may or may not be correct) that the evidence of an increasingly rapid expansion is seen at increasingly distant ... distances lol. In other words, there is nothing we see in our immediate "neighborhood" which reflects an increasingly rapid expansion.

There is no evidence for cosmic inflation. The recent BICEP2 results are looking increasingly dubious.

The principal evidence for the Big Bang is the cosmic microwave background, which is everywhere. The galaxies and other objects that show increasing recession velocities with distance are known to us by photons that impact upon our telescopes here and now. The Universe has no centre, the expansion occurs througout spacetime, and the distance between an observer and the most distant thing observed is the same no matter where in the universe the observer is.

Just think the parallel universe may just be the reverse of this one meaning after we go foward in time it all reverses and nothing ever happened.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

Just think the parallel universe may just be the reverse of this one meaning after we go foward in time it all reverses and nothing ever happened.

If there was a universe that was "in reverse" relative to ours, then things would still happen, but those "happenings" would be a general decrease in entropy rather than an increase.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord



Just think the parallel universe may just be the reverse of this one meaning after we go foward in time it all reverses and nothing ever happened.

If there was a universe that was "in reverse" relative to ours, then things would still happen, but those "happenings" would be a general decrease in entropy rather than an increase.

Sounds like a bunch of kickarse immortals ready to show us the light at some point in time.. . . .

a reply to: Astyanax

The principal evidence for the Big Bang is the cosmic microwave background, which is everywhere. The galaxies and other objects that show increasing recession velocities with distance are known to us by photons that impact upon our telescopes here and now. The Universe has no centre, the expansion occurs througout spacetime, and the distance between an observer and the most distant thing observed is the same no matter where in the universe the observer is.

Regardless of whether they "impact our telescopes here and now" they still had to travel farther and longer (those from greater distance) and, hence, show us a time that is farther in the past than the light arriving from our local neighborhood.

Assuming there was a big bang, there would be, by any definition, a center of sorts. Assuming a singularity from which the entirety of the universe expanded from would, by definition, be the center, IMO.

IF we are now saying there was no "Big Bang" to kickstart the universe, expansion, creation, whatever, then I will stfu since I know little regarding that line of thinking and have never bought into the lines I am thinking of. I have, pretty much, always been a big bang kinda guy lol

Your last sentence, particularly the statement about distance...either I do not understand what you said, or you are saying that everything in the universe is equidistant from the observer. If the explanation is the latter then I call BS. The observable phenomena does not support this whatsoever which reduces the statement to something less than an hypothesis.

I loved what you wrote, I would only bring up this point.

Since Einstein defined time as a dimension of
space therefore; space/time.

That being said, then time itself did not come into
existence until the alleged Big Bang.

So, how could our universe be cyclical since that
insinuates a number of cycles over time, which didn't
exist before the Big Bang.

Rebel 5

The Earth turns 360 degrees on it's axis and we call that a day
The Moon waxes and wanes ...we call that a Lunar month etc etc

We make mechanical and digital devices to divide such movement into seconds and minutes and hours ...
We plan our life by time as if it is a god
7 am ... rise, shower, breakfast then work etc etc ... we are prisoners of time by our own hands

Time is an illusion an abstract idea as is money

Time is our way of describing the movements of the heavens ... but where is the time for one's soul

a reply to: artistpoet

Birds get up at the right time and sleep at the right time. And they don't need a clock.

They are photosensitive i believe. Humans need a bit more Aid, Such as sun dials- and clocks to know the time.

To animals, Night is sleep time to many. And is daytime to nocternal animals. However, both nocternal and daytime animals can adapt for paralelled lifestyles. Such as an Owl hunting in the day and sleeping during the night.

It's not all black and white. Tho many owls may prefer hunting at night. In the daytime its much easier to see rabbits, squriels ect. Sticking out like sore thumbs among the snow during these seasons.

Cougars and bobcats will actively hunt during this season. Because tracks are easier to follow.
And snow gives sound supression when stepping for these types of animals that were known for quite a while to be nocternal. These characteristics are being rewritten all the time. So much so that we only mention nocternal say for, Bats. But that's only true to a certain degree. If the bats are say in south america and are big fruit bats. They will go about their buisness reguardless of the time of day.

Humans i would say have a more ridgid schedual. And require technology to achieve this Schedual. Rather than animals that have Schedual based on their Diet. Still a cool concept with time and all.

But time will always just be what is describe as the state of action or inaction.
It is a calculation between reactions and observations.

We can say this substance here is very stable and so is almost reactionless on it's own. Well this one over here would fizzle up and turn into a gas quite rapidly. The comparison to either or happens within time. And as described by the poster above time is jused based on the linear movements of planets, More importantly Earth spinning on its Axis which gives us the 24 hours as the sun faces us gives us light. As well as the wobble when the Earth tilt back and forth from side to side gives us the seasons.

TO say that a man made concept of linear motion can be reverse is like say we can turn the entire universe backwards.

Also im having trouble understanding the parallell universe thing. Where is this other universe? Empty space really isn't empty space. It is filled with reactionless particles, Which when crammed together add suppression between mass allowing orbits to even occure. Since it kinda has a density of it's own. It is sandwitching all mass subtly allowing things like say atoms to to exist with the orbiting sub-atomic particles.

If there wasin't Dark Energy present then there would be no reason for light to even have a set value for how fast it can go.

The only thing that slows particles down is surface area accelerated displaced force.

What i mean by that is, Just like in an aeroplane. How there is force generated by pushing away air. The faster you go. The more surface area in area you have to push area. You could increase the speed how ever much you want but the payload in energy required but air will always add resistance to velocity. That is what causes meteors to catch on fire when they enter our atomosphere. Is because the atmospher is kinda dense when you consider velocity.

Add the the fact many byproducts in our atomosphere is flamable. Which allows such things to catch on fire more rapidly and even explode before it reaches the surface.

Dark energy is the same concept, It create surface area resistance to all matter governing the speed of mass.

Say that something exists outside of our universe at an unfathomable distance away. Like so far it would beyond our concepts of Infinity since the universe is so freaking huge.

Lets just say hypthetically speaking the Universe is a giant infinite bubble.
Well outside that bubble time would be moveing more rapidly because say for instance outside the universe. There is no reduction in the speed of mass. So there is literally nothing outside. And by literally nothing i mean nothing. Since mass would be moving so fast you wouldn't even see light really. No planets or galaxies. And instead of the thing like a black hole where it will funnel mass to a close focus point. In such a case as a truely empty outer existance beyond our universe. All matter would simply just fly off in random directions. So the moment we hit this barrier we will disintergate into dust and be flung in every possible direction.

Since there is nothing to counter momentum from something like say. Beyond zero friction. Into the - negative friction zone.

Where mass velocity can increase exponentionally to infinity since nothing is blocking it. Now to say that life could come from such a play is laughable in the sense that. Nothing can exist without a type of cosmic jelly or invisible ocean to apply some sort of resistance to velocity and momentum.

Of course i don't believe in an outer universe. I believe that universe spans in all directions infinitely. And that it is ultimately packed full of matter. Most of it is non reaction black energy which turns back into physical matter once it has built up enough energy from being stored in a sealed unmoving state.

Well I for one look foward to meeting this parallel me from a parallel universe. I hope he has super powers because I always wanted all of them FTW!

a reply to:bbracken677

Regardless of whether they "impact our telescopes here and now" they still had to travel farther and longer (those from greater distance) and, hence, show us a time that is farther in the past than the light arriving from our local neighborhood.

Yes, of course. But the image you see in your telescope viewfinder is of an object that no longer exists. It has changed out of all recognition in 14 billion years, or it has vanished. All that remains is the image, made of photons, that exist here and now. This is important to understand; the evidence isn't 'out there'; it's right here.

Assuming there was a big bang, there would be, by any definition, a center of sorts. Assuming a singularity from which the entirety of the universe expanded from would, by definition, be the center, IMO.

There was a Big Bang, no assuming about it. And yes, of course, there was a centre of expansion. That centre of expansion cannot be found any more, however, because everything in the universe is equally distant from it.

Either I do not understand what you said, or you are saying that everything in the universe is equidistant from the observer.

That's right; in spacetime.

That's a hint. I'm going to leave it as an exercise for you to work out what it means, and how it explains the paradox that has troubled you. Let me know if you find it too difficult, and I'll explain in my next post.

It's not really that hard. I mean it.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Time is intrinsically linked to space as a dimension by which once travels through....

The question is not, does time exist... but whether the past the present and the future exist independent of one another?

Peace,

Korg.

a reply to: rebelv

Why do you think it implies a number of cycles over time?