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.
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).
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
No one believes that time moves. Time is a dimension, dimensions don't typically move.
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.
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)
Source> en.wikipedia.org...
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... 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.
a gradual quantitative transition without abrupt changes or discontinuities
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
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
Physicists don't take a thin slice of the 4-dimensional spacetime manifold.
That is the same as claiming only the edge of the Universe exists.
Originally posted by CLPrime They say that objects move through time in the same way as they move through 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.
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.
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.
That is the same as claiming only the edge of the Universe exists.
They say that objects move through time in the same way as they move through space.
That's exactly what modern physics claims.
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.
... 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 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).