It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Resource Allocation of a Finite Universe

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 10 2016 @ 06:12 PM
For those unfamiliar with the concept of Time Dilation, I'll briefly explain it. As one's velocity increases, especially where approaching the speed of light, time appears to progress more slowly for observers from the perspective of the experiencer and vice versa. That is, the fast traveller percieves time to progress slowly for everyone else, while simultaneously those others also perceive time to progress slowly for the traveler. For instance, the quicker your velocity, the more deep your voice and the more lengthy your radio transmissions would seem to those back on Earth, and again, vice versa.

In general, we percieve a circumstance in which time and velocity or time and space are directly relative. The more speed you experience, the less time you experience. One could interpret this as evidence that time, space and velocity are actually the same, single entity. As such, one can't utilize more than 100% of a thing, and so to take more of that thing for one purpose is to reduce the ammount of that thing which can be utilized for another. In example, if you're utilizing 33% of each of the three categories, then to increase the category of velocity to 34% one would decrease the value of one or both of the other categories.

There's another way to interpret this circumstance as well. A finite closed system must possess a maximum threshold. That is, it must possess a specific and finite ammount of resources. If sufficient agents within that system were to begin utilizing resources at a high rate, their total usage could meet the resource limitations of the system. Without knowing more about the underlying mechanics of the universe, it's impossible to say what the result may be. However, one possibility is instability. Operating at its maximum capacity, components responsible for maintaining the universe in its current state could be jeapordised. Errors might begin to appear, or time may become less fluid due to lag and error correcting.

In fact, a finite thing experiences a finite lifespan, and is thus subject to damage. Imagine an ungoverned car placed in neutral then accelerated to its maximum RPM. The engine will be damaged, and eventually destroyed. Another example would be to overclock a processor to its maximum potential, then leaving it to crunch numbers at 100% utilization of the CPU, endlessly. Again, the processor would become damaged and eventually destroyed. Any finite system which governs the mechanics of our universe must have a maximum operating capacity and thus maximum tolerance. In order to preserve the integrity of the universe, it would be necessary to apply safeguards in the form of limitations.

Imagine now that you're driving around town in a sports car. As you begin to accelerate, you'll begin to experience the force of intertia as it attempts to slow you down. Defying inertia, you'll now begin to experience the blurring of the environment around you. Approaching 120MPH, the environment is now exquisitely blurred. Your perceptual ability has been reduced, preventing you from experiencing your environment in the same detail you would have at a lower velocity. This is because in any given moment, the environment you percieve is larger than it would have otherwise been - you're travelling faster, and seeing more per moment.

Why should light travel at the rate which it does? Why should that rate be the maximum velocity possibile? Why should time and velocity appear interchangeable? Why does one percieve in less detail the more quickly they travel? Perhaps it's because you've only been allocated a specific amount of resources from the universe, and you're attempting to draw on more resources than allowed. The universe is only capable of processing a specific amount of data in any given instant, and so a maximum processing threshold has been allocated to each entity within it, in order to safeguard against over utilization by any agents contained within.

Does this sound plausible in your opinion?

posted on May, 10 2016 @ 06:28 PM
We are constantly travelling wih the speed of light. For example: if you or other entities would be able to see our planet an 30 light years away, does it mean that if that object is stationary we would collapse into it in 30 years or if we are on the same pass/coarse we'll be at that place in 30 years? Everything is moving/spinning, there is no empty space or complete stop.....
We have an infinite possibilities as species, but for some reasons we think that we are in DC(direct current), but in reality it is AC(alternative current), there are no directions in which way we have to go, only our perception.....which coming from knowledge/information. Quantum Tunneling would explain a little better, despite all the facts wave are still on other side!!

posted on May, 10 2016 @ 06:42 PM
If this is accurate, it would seem to suggest that perception is more taxing of resources than is actual environmental change. There doesn't seem to be a limit to how many particles can be relocated at any given time, nor does there appear to be a limit to how many can be transitioned into a different state in any moment. For example, a single person could dramatically alter a large region in an instant through detonating a nuclear warhead, yet they can't percieve that enviromental change at at the same rate and detail at a higher velocity.

This would seem to relate to the slit experiment, where it's been demonstrated that perception effects the state of particles. When observed, the particles behave as expected - as particles. When not observed, particles appear to behave as waves. More precisely, the effects of their unobserved activites are effects of waves. This seems to speak to the question "if a tree falls in the woods and theres no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?" It would appear that there was no tree during the time in which no one was around to hear it.

So then we already understand that there's something about perception which is significant in the eyes of the universe. I think the interchangability of time is an axiom, but the question is whether or not percpetion is a matter of such depth and complexity that it would be necessary to limit it, while simultaneously not needing to limit environmental changes. Might this even suggest that space, time, velocity and perception are of the same entity, or that space, time and velocity are only a matter of perception?
edit on 10-5-2016 by Navarro because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 10 2016 @ 07:00 PM
space,time and velocity is metter of perception which coming from information. The way we process it and adsorb it based solely on faith and knowledge. Majority of the time we have an explanation for things or we call them phenomenons. We need to look into phenomenons more closely, simple example is static electricity. But photoelectricity which could be related to static have an tendency to levitate a moon dust particles and im saying that gravity is nothing more than static electricity which is coming from silicates. Either thru direct pressure on them, like the mantle or thru UV light photoelectricity like moon dust.

posted on May, 10 2016 @ 11:11 PM
It's an infinite universe. They had to round off the number mathematically because they can't deal with infinity so our math is pretty much fake anyway.

Inside a small square of space they found an infinity of energy.

And you're an infinite part of infinity as well.

Infinity is the platform for everything.

posted on May, 11 2016 @ 02:08 PM
S+F for thinking outside the box. Your OP sounds kind of like the holographic universe and/or simulation theory, which is totally plausible to me.

My personal theory: (IMHO from here on out)

The universe we see around us today is the result of consciousness. From our point of view, everything is moving away from us, which we interpret as an expanding universe. What if the fact is we can see out into the universe at the speed of light? What if, as our collective knowledge increases, the apparent size of the universe expands to fit our "Science"?

Way back in the day, our ancestors used the sun, moon, and stars/planets to interpret and predict life and death and everything in between. Then when we invented the telescope, Copernicus I believe but I could easily be wrong, our "universe" expanded to the whole solar system. Today we have the WIMP map and red shift and probably tons of other instruments/telescopes/theories about what's going on in the universe we see around us every day.

Before anyone brings it up, I am totally in agreement with science and the scientific method. Testable and repeatable results are objective reality to almost everybody on this planet and should be if we all want to operate on the same level. I believe, however, that our collective realities coalesce into one singular "reality". Kind of like the many worlds theory in reverse I guess?

My viewpoint is a mass of many other theories and probably isn't original but I stand by it until more information comes in. Basically: Everybody has their own viewpoint and reality and the combination of everybody's reality is what we collectively call "objective reality".

new topics

top topics

log in