PDA

View Full Version : Multiple dimensions of time



AntiMaterialist
January 23rd, 2004, 09:45 AM
I believe time is not one-dimensional. My argument works like this:

Our universe has a light-speed barrier. For complicated reasons, this means that time is built into the fabric of space-time. This means that time begain when our universe began. Something created our universe, be it cosmic foam or God, it was something. That something is not static, it must change or it could not have created anything. Because it changes, it must have its own time.

Thus, when plotting where we stand in existence, we must use at least two different variables to plot our position in time. The first variable would define when we are relative to the big bang. The second variable would define when we are relative to events that occur in whatever it is that is outside of this universe that created it. Two variables of time means two dimensions of time. Of course, ultimate reality could have more than two dimensions of time as well.

This doesn't say anything about the nature of the outer dimension of time. Having multiple dimensions of time allows for freaky things like non-paradoxical time travel, but without knowing how the two time dimesions relate to each other, it is impossible to say. Intuitively, I would say that our time stream is nested inside the outer time stream, but that is certainly not the only possibility.

Your thoughts?

Apokalupsis
January 23rd, 2004, 10:10 AM
Before getting to far into the topic, can you explain the following:


That something is not static, it must change or it could not have created anything. Because it changes, it must have its own time.Why must this be so? Both premises.



The second variable would define when we are relative to events that occur in whatever it is that is outside of this universe that created it. I don't follow you here.


Of course, ultimate reality could have more than two dimensions of time as well.What other types of reality are there?

AntiMaterialist
January 23rd, 2004, 10:54 AM
Why must this be so? Both premises.

If something is perfectly static, which means no internal action whatsoever, then it is frozen perfectly as it is. If it takes action, something must happen internally to initiate that action. Ask yourself, "what is action". Action is a series of events that can be plotted over time.

So, why must it have time to begin with? I think this depends upon the definition of time. It does not necessarily have to have time, as the sort of time that is built into the fabric of our universe. However, it has a series of events. For example, if it was God who created our universe, then: first God decided to create us and secondly God created us. The fact that there is a first and second action implies time.


I don't follow you here.

Lettuce use a totally hypothetical example. Say, at 10am Godtime, God decided to create a universe. After a typing up the universe plan on his Universe Plan 2000 software, he then pressed the "execute" button. This was the word that created our universe. He pressed that button around 11am Godtime.

Now, time in our universe is divided up into discrete units, or quanta. Just as space is divided up into discrete units. However, there is no saying that this corresponds to discrete units of time in Godtime. Godtime could run faster, or slower, or could run at variable speeds. It could also be the case that God can travel in time. Thus, at 2pm, Godtime, God could choose not to answer a prayer from the 20th century but shortly after that does choose to answer a prayer from the 24th century. Then, at 3pm, Godtime, God could change his mind and decide to answer that prayer from the 20th century, which changed the future, and made answering the 24th century prayer irrelevant.

The events would be plotted as follows:
Event 1, not answering the 20th century prayer:
GT=2pm
T=10/13/1996 5:13pm EST

Event 2, answering the 24th century prayer:
GT=2:01pm
T= 9/07/2319 2:54am EST

Event 3, answering the 20th century prayer:
GT=3pm
T=10/13/1996 5:13pm EST

Event 4, the 24th century prayer does not happen
GT=3pm
T=9/07/2319 2:54am EST

This creates the effect of time travel, from those living within our timestream, but from the experience of those living in Godtime, there would be no true time travel. It would just be like an author deciding to go back and change something that happened earlier in his book.


What other types of reality are there?
Virtual - Realities that are subsets of greater realities.

If this universe is defined within something greater, then you could choose to look at it as an inner and outer reality. If you were trapped inside a video game, you might think that was reality. If you were watching that video game from the outside, then you would see it as a sub-reality.

AntiMaterialist
January 29th, 2004, 11:10 AM
I really wish you guys would respond to this thread. The concept of multiple dimensions of time has all sorts of ramifications on the issue of first cause and the nature of God, not to mention time travel, faster than light travel, and how long my back is going to keep itching from shingles!

KneeLess
February 8th, 2004, 09:07 PM
Something created our universe, be it cosmic foam or God, it was something. That something is not static, it must change or it could not have created anything. Because it changes, it must have its own time.

Not nessesarily so. Why must our universe have a start? Humans, as the close minded individuals we really are, know that things have a beginning, some kid of middle, and an end. We cannot grasp the idea of infinity (neither the idea of Chaos, hense the Chaos theory). What if our universe just always was?

Maybe this is a psedio programming code (heh):
1: Universe has been going for some time
2: Big Bang
3: Lots of fun stuff
4: IF event happens then goto line 2
5: IF event doesn't happen, goto line 3

Hence this is a loop. It has always been going, and always will go. The key, though, is understanding what the event (lines 4 and 5) is.

So, what if the universe always was, is, and always will be? I apologize if this wasn't the main idea of the discussion, but I had to point out this possible flaw in your thinking.

AntiMaterialist
February 9th, 2004, 11:24 AM
Well...

The cyclic version of the universe is no longer in favor among physicists. We believe, based on all available evidence, that this universe started with the Big Bang.

It could have been preceded by a big crunch - but as I understand it, you run into problems with entropy under that scenario.

But yes, if a non-entropic solution that involves infinite iterations of the big bang and big crunch could be found, then that would be a way around the multiple dimensions of time issue.

Well - you would have to add in another component to time - which cycle we are in, or which cycle a given event occurred in, if not talking about our own cycle - but that would not be an extra dimension.

However - I must emphasize that this theory is in disfavor among physicists these days. That does not mean it is wrong, just less likely.

KneeLess
February 9th, 2004, 08:17 PM
I don't follow on your description of multiple dimensions of time. I'll try to show you what I think you're talking about.

Time as we know it. Looks like this


---------------------------
| | | |
1920 1950 1980 2010

Time in one dimension. It does forward, according to the line, never strays off. One line, one dimension. Makes sense don't it? Two dimensional time:


D_____________________C
| |
| | - Year 76Ch (Hex numbers, each matches
| | - Year 73Ah to it's equivilent on the
| | - Year 708h bottom.)
|_____________________|
A | | | B
1800 1850 1900

Okay, let me see if I understand this (if i even drew correctly it at all). We exist on line AB. In parallel, the same years is an alternate time dimension DC. Would be exactly the same, but with some differences (:confused:). But also with that, there are two perpendicular time dimensions, BC and AD, each parellel to each other. Maybe you mean to say we can transgress time dimensions at selected intervals? And each interval would be a different, but parellel to the others, time dimension?

Am I on the right track?

AntiMaterialist
February 10th, 2004, 05:29 AM
Well, I think there is more than one way to envision multi-dimensional time.

It could be with one dimension perpindicular to the other. This would allow for parallel universes (alternate time streams).

It could also be nested, which is easy to explain by analogy. Think of a book - it could be considered its own universe, with its own dimension of time, starting from page 1, ending on page 1000 (long book). The story within the book would correspond to the people and events of our universe. The physical book itself would correspond to the fabric of space-time of our universe.

Now, you can read the book from front to back, if you wish. In that way, you experience time from the perspective of those characters in the book. You can also hold the book in your hands, in which you can say that all moments within the book exist at the same time, outside of the book. You can also read the book out-of-sequence, which would be like time travel.

If, instead of a book, you had a computer simulation, then you could change something earlier in the simulation, watch how it makes a change later. Thus allowing not only for time travel, but for changing the past.

Your question is, how do we plot that? I think it could be plotted on a 2-D graph, but if we are talking about nested time, then there would be certain contraints on the 2-D graph. When plotting the course of an object with 2 time dimensions, it will always move upward on the y axis (which represents the outer time dimension) while it can, in theory, go backwards and forwards along the X-axis (which represents the inner time dimension)

If you were to step outside of our time stream, do a bunch of stuff, then step back into our time stream, the plot would look something like this (note, the dots(...) don't mean anything - they are just there because html won't accept extra spaces):

.............../
............./
.........../
..........I
..........I
..........I
......../
....../
..../
../

Continuing with the computer simulation model - starting at the base, the model runs for the first 4 units of outer time, then is frozen for the next three units of outer time, then runs again for the 3 units after that.

A horizontal line would be the one situation that would not occur, because it would mean time was flowing on the inner dimension, but not on the outer dimension. That would be like saying our computer simulation was running, but time was not passing in our world while the computer simulation ran - which would be non-sensical.

INSANITY
February 13th, 2004, 02:44 AM
Maybe this is a psedio programming code (heh):
1: Universe has been going for some time
2: Big Bang
3: Lots of fun stuff
4: IF event happens then goto line 2
5: IF event doesn't happen, goto line 3



this is correct by string theory. in string theory the big bang happend when our universe and one of the alternate universes collided

Apokalupsis
February 14th, 2004, 02:32 PM
AntiMat....just use:


 

it's the "ampersand" + "nbsp;" w/ no spaces.

Using this, your above graph appears as:

           /
          /
         |
         |
         |
        /
      /
    /
  /


*note* I also replaced the "I" w/ | (shift \)

Just copy/paste the code as you need it. The code for the graph looks like:



           /
          /
         |
         |
         |
        /
      /
    /
  /

AntiMaterialist
February 14th, 2004, 08:05 PM
Thanks - wow, that is difficult.

But - your way looks best!

O B
February 16th, 2004, 11:59 AM
any one seen tv series called sliders where the same earth has different layers of time and in each layer its the same year but different things happen, different world events.

There could be layers that didnt win the 2nd world war if there ever was one etc.

AntiMaterialist
February 16th, 2004, 08:32 PM
Parallel universes!

Graphing that on a two dimensional time chart would look different, I think, than graphing nested time. One of the variables could be continuous - time within one of the universes. The other would be discreet - which universe are we in.

Such a system would require an outer construct, with its own time, in which to define each individual space time - thus, in total, requiring two continuous and one discreet variable in order to properly define where you are in time, at any given moment.

AntiMaterialist
February 25th, 2004, 07:29 AM
And another attempt to get others interested in what I think is a fascinating topic, but not too many others seem to care about...

The concept of multiple dimensions of time would allow for prophecy to be real, and yet still make the future not predetermined. If prophecy is ever actually real (of which I frankly doubt), then haven't you guys every wondered about how it would work?

Fyshhed
February 25th, 2004, 11:21 AM
And another attempt to get others interested in what I think is a fascinating topic, but not too many others seem to care about...

The concept of multiple dimensions of time would allow for prophecy to be real, and yet still make the future not predetermined. If prophecy is ever actually real (of which I frankly doubt), then haven't you guys every wondered about how it would work?
Parallel universes are an intriguing concept, but consider this.
You are faced with an arbitrary decision. We'll say you meet a woman, fall in love, and consider marrying her. You have the following primary options (and some secondary ones i wont bother going into)
A)Ask her to marry you
B)Don't ask her to marry you
In parallel universes you might do either. But your current conciousness/soul will inevitably choose one of them. Either could happen, but one DOES happen. So parallel universes are a possibility, but I would say unprovable.

AntiMaterialist
February 25th, 2004, 01:32 PM
I would say that if there are parallel universes (more likely to perpindicular according to physicists) that they are not peopled with other versions of ourselves.

The only way that would arise is if you believe in the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics - which results in an effectively infinite number of universes. This seems intellectually unsatisfying to me, because that would in turn require an infinite amount of resources to define those universes - and we then have to ask where these infinite resources would come from.

I think that the evidence for a starting point for our universe gives strong weight to the possibility of nested dimensions of time. I am not aware of any evidence for parallel universes, but many theories of physics allow for them.

Hardcore atheists, when confronted with the more convincing aspects of the intelligent design argument, often resort to the many worlds theory to get around the necessity of an intelligent designer.

FruitandNut
April 17th, 2004, 05:57 AM
Thoughts of me being here, there and everywere! The trouble is if I wanted to get to there I wouldn't start from here! If I leaned against a wall for a tad short of eternity I may find myself passing through it!

In terms of time travel, we would indeed need to seek areas of the universe in which the speed of light does not apply and is also not user unfriendly to us. Even then if we could look back, so to speak, on our past it could never also be our present. It would be a film or image only. As a dream. As for sliding door effect, we can't be in two places at once, alternative lives are just that, alternative.

AM: Even the many worlds theory still leaves us with grasping for meaning in the context of infinity.

HappyLady
April 17th, 2004, 06:29 AM
I would say that if there are parallel universes (more likely to perpindicular according to physicists) that they are not peopled with other versions of ourselves.

I think this would be very possible. If we agree that a soul is energy, or at least that energy is what propels us, then it could make logical sense that all of the energy that belongs to one individual (order) could be dispersed in a multitude of places (disorder) and that we are living a multitude of "lives" in a multitude of "realities" and that at some point, the disorder (all the lives an individual energy is living) will return to order (all of our dispersed energy will rejoin for absolute truth.)

I had an experience once...some can call it a dream...some can call it whatever they want, that I met up with a part of me in another dimension. I wonder what kind of chaos that caused! ;)

KneeLess
April 24th, 2004, 08:03 PM
I think this would be very possible. If we agree that a soul is energy, or at least that energy is what propels us, then it could make logical sense that all of the energy that belongs to one individual (order) could be dispersed in a multitude of places (disorder) and that we are living a multitude of "lives" in a multitude of "realities" and that at some point, the disorder (all the lives an individual energy is living) will return to order (all of our dispersed energy will rejoin for absolute truth.)
I don't see how energy as you say can be "dispersed" as you say. According to normal laws of kinetics you can't really spread out energy. You can split it up and move it, but then the two energies are totally seperate from one another and can exist in different forms, never to join again. Or they can join again only if they are in the same form, except in very special circumstances.

AntiMaterialist
April 26th, 2004, 01:52 PM
I also do not think we can agree that the soul is energy.

But, this comes down to what we mean by the word "energy". It has particular meanings in physics. However, in lay terms, it has many different uses. I think her Happiness is using energy as something that is not matter, yet has substance.

Other terms to use for the meaning would be:
Etheric
Non-corporeal
Spiritual

Energy, in its physics usage, is a function of physics (so says the redundancy department of redundancy). Kinetic energy involves motion of some sort - be it waves in the air, or waves in the fabric of space-time.

The soul might well use energy, and might well have its own matter - but it is something separate from this universe. The laws of physics that apply to this universe would not necessarily apply to the soul.

HappyLady
April 27th, 2004, 03:27 AM
Or they can join again only if they are in the same form, except in very special circumstances.

Whose to say death isn't a very special circumstance?

HappyLady
April 27th, 2004, 03:36 AM
The soul might well use energy, and might well have its own matter - but it is something separate from this universe. The laws of physics that apply to this universe would not necessarily apply to the soul.

Now, I might have bit of more than I can chew. I think I'm thinking of the law of entropy. Isn't that that particles in a state of disorder will move to a state of order.

We know that our bodies conduct electricity, which is energy. So there must be some kind of energy in us. Energy doesn't simply stop, it transforms. It is my belief that the when we die, our unit of energy unites with the other units of energy (disorder to order).

Unfortunately, I need to do some research before I really continue without sounding like more of an idiot. You should have seen the lightbulb example I had going here. ;)

SouthernDem
April 27th, 2004, 04:33 AM
I don't see how energy as you say can be "dispersed" as you say. According to normal laws of kinetics you can't really spread out energy. Well, with recent discoveries that light may be slowing down, those who are the top in their field in Physics are saying that energy may not be as constant as we had previously thought. Kind of throws a wrench in E=mc^2 too.

AntiMaterialist
April 27th, 2004, 05:06 AM
I think I'm thinking of the law of entropy. Isn't that that particles in a state of disorder will move to a state of order.
The opposite - from order to disorder. I am willing to bet that while entropy applies to things inside this universe, it does not apply to overall existence.




We know that our bodies conduct electricity, which is energy. So there must be some kind of energy in us. Energy doesn't simply stop, it transforms. It is my belief that the when we die, our unit of energy unites with the other units of energy (disorder to order).
We have many sorts of physical energy within us. Technically, our bodies only conduct small amounts of electricity. Nerves are not conductors in the same way that wires are - nerves move ions around, not electrons. We do have electrical fields associated with the body as well. When we die, the physical energy within our body merges with the environment, mainly in the form of heat dissipating. I don't think that has much to do with the soul though.




Well, with recent discoveries that light may be slowing down
Can you provide a reference for this? I would like to read about it.

HappyLady
April 27th, 2004, 06:35 AM
The opposite - from order to disorder. I am willing to bet that while entropy applies to things inside this universe, it does not apply to overall existence.

Oh, okay. Now I remember where I was going with this. (I haven't pondered this theory for a few years now.)

Yes, the law of entropy states that particles will move from a state of order to disorder. The problem is, the law of entropy is only looking at half the picture. It can only look at what is tangible in the universe. Therefore, it see that particles in order move to disorder, but then where do they go??? Do you know? Or are they just existing in...oh...chaos. Currently, all of our particles are contained with our body. (Order). Albert Einstein said, "An atom is not a thing." For particles to be things...then you are right...they just dissipate, blend with the physical world because they are things. But...they are not things. They are whats. When we die, the particles don't dissipate They go into a state of disorder. They go somewhere.

Now, it ties into the chaos theory. In disorder...there is perfect order. So, when the scientist looks at disordered particles...all he sees is chaos. He can't see the perfect order with the intellect.

To me, and it's impossible to prove with the limited intellect, The particles go into disorder, and there, find perfect order. (The conjoining of alllll energy, which makes up the "god" if you believe in god...or just conjoins energy if you believe energy perpetuates energy.)

Now...because the physical earth functions on an order/matter, we can not be whole here, because that would require "perfect order." And we can't have "perfect order" here. Therefore, it is plausible that our energies are dispersed in several realities (possibly infinite), and that the only place they come together for perfect order is beyond what we can comprehend here.

(My brain hurts now.)

AntiMaterialist
April 27th, 2004, 07:42 AM
They are whats.
Atoms are composed of subatomic particles, which can be divided down quite a ways. Ultimately, they appear to be self sustaining patterns of resonance within the fabric of space-time.




Now, it ties into the chaos theory. In disorder...there is perfect order. So, when the scientist looks at disordered particles...all he sees is chaos. He can't see the perfect order with the intellect.
I don't understand this.




To me, and it's impossible to prove with the limited intellect, The particles go into disorder, and there, find perfect order. (The conjoining of alllll energy, which makes up the "god" if you believe in god...or just conjoins energy if you believe energy perpetuates energy.)
The particles that compose your body are all recyled - in fact, ultimately, our bodies are composed of stardust. The particles do not dissipate at all, except when they are converted into energy.



I think your model is too vague. It needs solid math to help narrow it down to testable specifics.


Have you ever read about any of the implicit order theories?

HappyLady
April 27th, 2004, 07:55 AM
I think your model is too vague. It needs solid math to help narrow it down to testable specifics. Have you ever read about any of the implicit order theories?

I agree. The problem is that I derived the theory through meditative experience. I didn't read a book, and I'm certainly no physicist. (That's pretty obvious.) It was only after the meditative experience that I read...somewhere about the law of entropy and realized I had already acquired the awareness of it through meditation. What I know of the chaos theory was attained the same way. In the experience, I remember the two were intertwined, I just can't really remember how.

The problem, too, is I'm the writer/verbal type. Math...eludes me. ;)

I'll have to start researching this so I can solidify it and make it easier to verbalize. Maybe I'll start with implicit order theories?

Slipnish
April 28th, 2004, 10:25 AM
Well, with recent discoveries that light may be slowing down, those who are the top in their field in Physics are saying that energy may not be as constant as we had previously thought. Kind of throws a wrench in E=mc^2 too.

I think the people promoting that theory are Yecs and haven't done their homework. Check out this site: <a href = "http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=4&fldAuto=52">Link</a>

It offers a nice refutation of the changing speed of light. :)

Slipnish
April 28th, 2004, 10:37 AM
I would say that if there are parallel universes (more likely to perpindicular according to physicists) that they are not peopled with other versions of ourselves.

You should read more Terry Pratchett. Given an infinite universe, and infinite other "possible" universes, surely at least one would be parallel enough to be populated with "us."


The only way that would arise is if you believe in the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics - which results in an effectively infinite number of universes. This seems intellectually unsatisfying to me, because that would in turn require an infinite amount of resources to define those universes - and we then have to ask where these infinite resources would come from.[quote]

You have an infinite number of universes, each with its own seperate resources. Each may be preceeded by their own Big Bang, or Cosmic Egg, or whatever started all of this mess in the first place.

[quote]I think that the evidence for a starting point for our universe gives strong weight to the possibility of nested dimensions of time. I am not aware of any evidence for parallel universes, but many theories of physics allow for them.

Okay, given your structure for nested time, is it possible to move from one nest to another? (In theory anyway...) Do events in the time line have an effect on that time line? Is time in any way "connected" to that reality? Or is it always independent and serve only as a way to measure between events?


Hardcore atheists, when confronted with the more convincing aspects of the intelligent design argument, often resort to the many worlds theory to get around the necessity of an intelligent designer.

I haven't seen any convincing aspects of ID, but I'll take your word for how atheists deal with it. :D

Slipnish
April 28th, 2004, 10:37 AM
AM:

PS: Don't ask for math. I too am a verbal type!

AntiMaterialist
April 28th, 2004, 10:46 AM
Do events in the time line have an effect on that time line? Is time in any way "connected" to that reality? Or is it always independent and serve only as a way to measure between events?

Do you mean the inner timeline, or the outer time line?


Regarding other versions of ourselves:
This universe is not infinite. I don't know if there are infinite universes. I mean, I could go either way on that one. I see arguments on both sides, and I guess it breaks down into seriously speculative speculation.

Galendir
April 28th, 2004, 02:35 PM
Hardcore atheists, when confronted with the more convincing aspects of the intelligent design argument, often resort to the many worlds theory to get around the necessity of an intelligent designer.
I find this to be an extremely dubious claim. I am unaware of any prominent atheists needing to resort to this theory to counter any ID arguments. Perhaps you could offer support for this claim before you keep reintroducing it.

SouthernDem
April 28th, 2004, 03:29 PM
I think the people promoting that theory are Yecs and haven't done their homework. Check out this site: <a href = "http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=4&fldAuto=52">Link</a>

It offers a nice refutation of the changing speed of light. :)

A nice refutation of course if your looking for a biased opinion that comes from a very narrow minded approch. The link that you presented refutes only those claiming the theory as evidence of a "Young Earth";More disproving those using it for religious purposes, However, with your comment on not being a math person, I can see how such an article could be very compelling, those "Yecs" you refer to are people with PhDs but what could they know...right? The theory would even had been announced if those who experimented were "Yecs"...Sorry if I seem bity I just have a problem with your :) after your statement as if my research on this topic has been in vain and you believe you can disprove a well founded theory simply by reading an article by some Athiest tred of listening to other theories that he obviously is "too good" for.........Ok, time to come down off my soap box.....anyway, AM here is a link that is quite UNBIASED that you could take a look at
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/08/07/1028157961167.html, and also I read online something about more evidence supporting this having to do with the way light bends around a black hole..ill try and find that again or talk to someone who might actually have a hard copy of it.... Again, sorry if I seem preachy, dont take it personally.

SouthernDem
April 28th, 2004, 03:47 PM
I also have read an interesting theory that states that in an instance of which you would need to "break" hole in time,about the same amount you would need to escape from a black hole[yourspeed>c]. The amount of energy needed would be so extensive that if reached it would not be able to return to an "equilibrim" (that equalibrium being [0<yourspeed<c] It has something to do with tachion (sp?) particles and they way that matter cannot reach the speed of light, just get closer and closer or when exceeding the speed of light cannot slow down.

Hmm.... that was terrible written, if i had a chalk board I might be able to explain better....Ill try a graph of this theory

[------X<c-----)|[c]|(-----c<X----- inf)

Where the space including X<c and c<X are speeds that can be reached, and c being the least amount of energy needed. So, since after reaching that limit (since you can be equal to the speed of light to do so) you would be traveling faster than the speed of light, inhibiting you (by modern physics) from slowing down, so basically if you were ever to reach that speed and travel to another dimension you would still be traveling at that speed making it impossible to stay within time for longer than (insert some small immeasurable time)......Unless there is some inter-dimensional physics that has yet to be discovered.....phew

SouthernDem
April 28th, 2004, 03:48 PM
Yeah, the first time I posted it cut off the last half...




I also have read an interesting theory that states that in an instance of which you would need to "break" hole in time,about the same amount you would need to escape from a black hole[yourspeed>c]. The amount of energy needed would be so extensive that if reached it would not be able to return to an "equilibrim" (that equalibrium being [0<yourspeed<c] It has something to do with tachion (sp?) particles and they way that matter cannot reach the speed of light, just get closer and closer or when exceeding the speed of light cannot slow down.

Hmm.... that was terrible written, if i had a chalk board I might be able to explain better....Ill try a graph of this theory

[------X<c-----)|[c]|(-----c<X----- inf)

Where the space including X<c and c<X are speeds that can be reached, and c being the least amount of energy needed. So, since after reaching that limit (since you can be equal to the speed of light to do so) you would be traveling faster than the speed of light, inhibiting you (by modern physics) from slowing down, so basically if you were ever to reach that speed and travel to another dimension you would still be traveling at that speed making it impossible to stay within time for longer than (insert some small immeasurable time)......Unless there is some inter-dimensional physics that has yet to be discovered.....phew

Slipnish
April 29th, 2004, 09:00 AM
Do you mean the inner timeline, or the outer time line?


Inner time line first, then outer if you have a theory.



Regarding other versions of ourselves:
This universe is not infinite. I don't know if there are infinite universes. I mean, I could go either way on that one. I see arguments on both sides, and I guess it breaks down into seriously speculative speculation.

The inner time line universe isn't infinite, but is there any reason why the outer time line universe couldn't be infinite with (bear with me here) clusters of clusters in it?

Outer Universe
|||||||||||||||(@)||||||||||||(@)||||||||||(@)|||| ||||||||
| | |
| | |
Inner Universe/s with alternate time lines/histories.

Within the outer time line, all possible universes exist. Universes where the BB never happened, or happened recently, or has yet to happen, etc...

Slipnish
April 29th, 2004, 09:41 AM
[center]
A nice refutation of course if your looking for a biased opinion that comes from a very narrow minded approch.

Biased in that most of the sites I see using this approach are creationist websites. Biased in that I personally don't believe it, because the data is inconclusive at the present time. It is NOT a fact despite how very much you might want or believe it to be. :)



The link that you presented refutes only those claiming the theory as evidence of a "Young Earth";More disproving those using it for religious purposes, However, with your comment on not being a math person, I can see how such an article could be very compelling, those "Yecs" you refer to are people with PhDs but what could they know...right?

<i>Speed of light slowing down after all?
... published very supportive articles concerning a theory by <b>South Australian creationist
Barry Setterfield, </b>that the speed of light (‘c’) had slowed down or ... </i>

I got this from Google in one try by typing in "barry setterfield, light slowing," emphasis mine.

Look familiar? CREATIONIST. Your argument from authority is really only supported if everyone agrees. They don't. In my experience, creationists typically suscribe to dogma first, and then any scientific data that confirms what they already believe. That is NOT how science works. You start with a hypothesis, experiment, then validate or revise the hypothesis. You don't pick and choose your data.

As for PhD.s ROFL! You should check your facts. Setterfield has no Ph.D. And very little formal training. From his own website:

<blockquote>Because of his parents' occupations, the Setterfield's ended up moving 17 times in 20 years while Barry was growing up. He remained an excellent student, however, and by the time the family had retired from the Salvation Army they were located in Adelaide, South Australia. Thus, when he was 18, Barry received a Commonwealth Scholarship and enrolled in Adelaide University. He had planned a double major in physics and geology. In his third year, however, Barry found himself unable to continue his studies due to the severity of both health and family problems.

snip here

Because a relationship with the Lord is an individual affair, Barry came to terms with Christianity at this time and committed his life to Christ. This made him hesitant to re-enter University with its anti-Christian bias. Thus he concentrated on his work with the Astronomical Society, as well as helping his parents in their presentation and upkeep of the historical Old Government House in Belair, South Australia, where they had been appointed curators.

snip again

Though often referred to as Dr. Setterfield, Barry has taken pains to point out that he has not received a Ph.D. and the term "Dr." should therefore not be used with his name.
</blockquote>

There is no indication that he has ever graduated from any university. Still, you may continue to quote him as a viable source for your beliefs. :rolleyes:
Although you may want to drop the reference to the Yecs with PhDs from your rhetoric. :)

Here's the link to Barry's website: <a href = "http://www.setterfield.org/bio.html">Link to Barry's World</a>


The theory would even had been announced if those who experimented were "Yecs"...Sorry if I seem bity I just have a problem with your :) after your statement as if my research on this topic has been in vain and you believe you can disprove a well founded theory simply by reading an article by some Athiest tred of listening to other theories that he obviously is "too good" for.........

I don't know if the poster of that article was an atheist or not. You don't have to be an atheist to get pretty angry with Yecs.

Feel free to be as "bity" (sic) as you wish, however, I think the validity of your argument is more than a little tarnished. I state absolutely that your OPINION that Setterfield's theory is "well founded" is NOT TRUE. It is not accepted by the mainstream theorists. It is not accepted as truth outside of a few dogmatic, fundamentalist Christians who feel that their dogma must compete with science and win.

Faith and science do not compete. There is no way to measure God. Period. Setterfield offers hope to people who want to prove that the universe is less than 16.5 billion years old. That's all. ;?


Ok, time to come down off my soap box.....anyway, AM here is a link that is quite UNBIASED that you could take a look at
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/08/07/1028157961167.html, and also I read online something about more evidence supporting this having to do with the way light bends around a black hole..ill try and find that again or talk to someone who might actually have a hard copy of it.... Again, sorry if I seem preachy, dont take it personally.

I read it. Wasn't inpressed. Let me save you the time on the black hole thing. The second link below addresses it.


Refutation one. Check it out.
<a href = "http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/light.htm">Link one</a>

Refutation two. Here we go.
<blockquote>"It is a very speculative suggestion, however, because the detailed physics of black holes are very poorly understood and totally untested. Davies himself admits the arguments are "only suggestive".

But if he is proved right and the speed of light has slowed, it would revolutionise physics. "If these results hold out, we need to start re-examining the very nature of space and time," said Davies."</blockquote>

<a href = "http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992650">Link two</a>

Refutation three. The ultimate site; Bow down to TO!
<blockquote>Claim CE411:
The speed of light was faster in the past, so objects millions of light-years away are much younger than millions of years.
Source:
Norman, Trevor and Barry Setterfield. 1987. The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time. Flinders University of South Australia, School of Mathematical Sciences, Technical Report. http://www.ldolphin.org/setterfield/report
Response:
The possibility that the speed of light has not been constant has received much attention from physicists, but they have found no evidence for any change. Many different measurements of the speed of light have been made in the last 180 or so years. The older measurements were not as accurate as the latest ones. Setterfield chose 120 data points from 193 measurements available (see [Dolphin n.d.] for the data), and the line of best fit for these points shows the speed of light decreasing. If you use the entire data set, though, the line of best fit shows the speed increasing. However, a constant speed of light is well within the experimental error of the data.


If Setterfield's formulation of the changes in physical parameters were true, then there should have been 417 days per year around AD 1, and the earth would have melted during the creation week due to the extremely rapid radioactive decay. [Morton et al. 1983]


As an aside, some creationists assert that fundamental laws haven't changed. [Morris 1974, 18]
References:
Dolphin, Lambert. Table 1: Master Set of 193 Values of c. http://www.ldolphin.org/cdata.txt. See also http://www.ldolphin.org/constc.shtml
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Arkansas: Master Books.
Morton, G. R., H. S. Slusher, R. C. Bartman and T. G. Barnes, 1983. Comments on the velocity of light. Creation Research Society Quarterly 20: 63-65. </blockquote>

<a href = "http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE411.html">Link three</a>

Oh, and BTW: I may not be proficient in the maths of physics, but I can read. If you would like, feel free to post the maths, Setterfields work that is, and explain it to this poor layman. :cool:

Slipnish
April 29th, 2004, 01:10 PM
Thanks for the negative rep there Southern Dem!

Shall I take that as your admission that you are unable to refute my argument through the advent of the debate?

Galendir
April 29th, 2004, 01:32 PM
Thanks for the negative rep there Southern Dem!
Shall I take that as your admission that you are unable to refute my argument through the advent of the debate?Such abuse will not be tolerated!

Slipnish
April 29th, 2004, 02:25 PM
Such abuse will not be tolerated!

NP Galendir. Its all good. I just want him to put his money where his arguement is... :D

Meng Bomin
April 29th, 2004, 03:51 PM
Unless I am very much mistaken, SouthernDem's negative rep actually indirectly gave Slipnish a first place spot on the rep list. What glorious irony!:lol:

Therefore, it see that particles in order move to disorder, but then where do they go?They don't go anywhere of importance. Going from order to disorder simply means that the particles move in a more chaotic manner. In a complete state of entropy, the energy of an area is basicly uniform; there is no energy that can perform tasks and nothing happens. For an example of entropy, steam has more entropy than water, which has more entropy than ice. Why? Because in ice, the water molecules are in ordered crystals and are confined to a strict space and they tend not to move much, thus having low entropy. In water, the molecules are restricted to their container, they move more but are still restricted. In steam, the molecules are virtually unrestricted and their movements are chaotic, thus steam has the most entropy.

chadn737
April 29th, 2004, 05:18 PM
Speed of light slowing down after all?
... published very supportive articles concerning a theory by South Australian creationist
Barry Setterfield, that the speed of light (‘c’) had slowed down or ...

Barry Setterfield? The theory of a variable speed of light is not Barry Setterfields.

The idea of a variable speed of light belongs to Joćo Magueijo, a theoretical physicist and professor at the Imperial College of England. This man does have a Ph.D. and knows what he is talking about.

Slipnish
April 29th, 2004, 06:20 PM
Barry Setterfield? The theory of a variable speed of light is not Barry Setterfields.

The idea of a variable speed of light belongs to Joćo Magueijo, a theoretical physicist and professor at the Imperial College of England. This man does have a Ph.D. and knows what he is talking about.

Hmmm. Well, most of the stuff I found was concerning Setterfield, and SD never offered to counter. I'll look into this gentleman whose name I need an extra tongue to pronounce... :D

Okay, did a quick google. Here we go:
<blockquote>On a totally different front I have at times tried to solve the so-called cosmological problems of the Big Bang model, without invoking inflation. This has led me to consider cosmologies in which the constants of nature change in time. A shocking possibility is that the speed of light might change in time during the life of the Universe. Here's my seminal paper, and here are some follow up papers .

We got more than what we bargained for. We found that VSL can also explain an open, but nearly flat Universe. More interestingly there is a regime in which the theory may explain a small but non negligible amount of cosmological constant, as implied by recent Supernovae results. A plot combining the Supernovae results with the recent experimental evidence for a changing alpha may be found here .

One must sympathise with the view that VSL theories are rendered objectionable by their outright violation of Lorentz invariance.

However, some recent attempts to make the Albrecht-Magueijo model ``geometrically honest'' were not less ugly than the original; and were useless for cosmology. Keep an eye on this space. I am about to produce a covariant varying speed of light theory - believe or not they exist and they are not cosmologically useless. Here's the first and second installments, one more to come. </blockquote>

From his own website, no less. <a href = "http://theory.ic.ac.uk/~magueijo/vsl.html">Link</a>

He doesn't claim it varies, just that he is using it in various models to describe the shape of the universe. On the homepage of his website, the link to the VSL (Variable Speed of Light) is labeled "better keep my day job."

Thus far, my argument stands. He doesn't say it does, and is using it as a possible variable to explain something else.

Interestingly enough, it is quite interesting to compare this gentleman's web site to Barry's. I only had to click on a couple of links to realize I was far out of my depth. Barry's is more laid back, and quickly moved into his own theology and possible hints that due to the IMHO, secretive and satanic government and scientific conspiracy his own theory of the VSL was not accepted by the mainstream.

What do you think, Chad?

chadn737
April 29th, 2004, 07:32 PM
His theory challenges the notion of light being constant. No time, bye.

Slipnish
April 29th, 2004, 07:57 PM
His theory challenges the notion of light being constant. No time, bye.

From his website: <blockquote>The varying speed of light (VSL) theory provides an elegant solution to the cosmological problems - the horizon, flatness, and Lambda problems of Big-Bang cosmology.</blockquote>

They are using the VSL to combat cosmological problems.

<blockquote>Unfortunately the foundations of such a theory are far from solid. Covariance the speeds of either emitter or observer. In this paper we shall be as conservative as possible and preserve all aspects of the second postulate of special relativity consistent with allowing space-time variations
of c. </blockquote>

Even he admits that varying the speed of light, in order to solve the problems he alludes to, are far from solid. He is not offering proof of the variance of the speed of light. He is looking at what would happen IF, and that's a big IF, the speed of light would/could vary.

Here's a fairly in depth analysis of what they are looking at: <a href = "http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm">Physics link</a>

It's fairly math and science intensive, so put your thinking cap on.

Now here is an article I ran across the other day on NewScientist.com

<blockquote>Could the Universe be shaped like a medieval horn? It may sound like a surrealist's dream, but according to Frank Steiner at the University of Ulm in Germany, recent observations hint that the cosmos is stretched out into a long funnel, with a narrow tube at one end flaring out into a bell. It would also mean that space is finite.

And the idea has another advantage. In the flat space of conventional cosmology, the smallest blobs on microwave sky maps ought to be round. But they are not. "If you look at the small structures, they look like little ellipses," says Steiner. The curve of the horn-shaped universe could be just right to explain this. If you look at any little piece of the horn, it is saddle-shaped like a Pringles potato chip - curving down in one direction and up in the perpendicular one. This "negatively curved" space would act like a warped lens, distorting the image of round primordial blobs in a way that makes them look elliptical to us. </blockquote>

I snipped a couple of bits I considered relevant for this discussion.

My question is, since we now think we know the shape of the universe, how does this affect the VSL theory? ;)

chadn737
April 29th, 2004, 11:53 PM
Im not claiming that VSL is true, I was just trying to dispel the notion that its all a bunch of creationist BS. That there might be some science behind such an idea. I first heard about this theory last year after reading about in Popular Science or something.

Even if VSL is true it still doesnt prove the theory of a young universe. My understanding is that Joćo Magueijo introduced the idea to solve some of the problems with the current theories of big bang.

Slipnish
April 30th, 2004, 06:32 AM
Im not claiming that VSL is true, I was just trying to dispel the notion that its all a bunch of creationist BS. That there might be some science behind such an idea. I first heard about this theory last year after reading about in Popular Science or something.

Even if VSL is true it still doesnt prove the theory of a young universe. My understanding is that Joćo Magueijo introduced the idea to solve some of the problems with the current theories of big bang.

For the record though, if you look it up on the web, the idea has been glommed onto by the creo crowd for support of their ideology.

This act, though not the first, and for a certainty not the last, is typical of the fundamentalist crowd. They want to justify their dogma with science. The problem is, they don't understand, or don't want to understand how it works.

It took me 1/2 an hour or so, to learn way more than I wanted to about the VSL, and its adherents.

I am still puzzled over the problems Magueijo mentions, and the (current thought) shape of the universe, and wondering if that will make him revise his theory that the VSL is even possible. :?:

chadn737
April 30th, 2004, 02:14 PM
My question is, since we now think we know the shape of the universe, how does this affect the VSL theory?

Last I knew physicists were still hotly debating this subject. There is evidence supporting the flat universe theory.

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/cmb-harmonics.html


The MAXIMA, BOOMERANG, and DASI collaborations, which measure minute variations in the CMB, recently reported new results at the American Physical Society meeting in Washington, D.C. All three agree remarkably about what the "harmonic proportions" of the cosmos imply: not only is the universe flat, but its structure is definitely due to inflation, not to topological defects in the early universe.

The results were presented as plots of slight temperature variations in the CMB that graph sound waves in the dense early universe. These high-resolution "power spectra" show not only a strong primary resonance but are consistent with two additional harmonics, or peaks.


Analogous to the "first harmonic" of a vibrating string, the peak showed up strongly on the initial results from MAXIMA and BOOMERANG, indicating features of one angular degree -- indicating that the universe is flat. Had the variations been smaller or larger than a degree, they would have indicated a universe whose geometry is negatively or positively curved, like the surface of a saddle or a sphere.

Slipnish
May 1st, 2004, 10:54 PM
I just read something the other day that said the newest thing was a horn shape. Like the old bugle like things they play when the king enters the room? I am looking for the article, but google isn't cooperating...

Here we go: <a href = "http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994879">Link to horn shaped universe.</a>

This is a little more recent, April 15 '04.

Okay, so given that the universe doesn't appear to be flat any longer, what now?

FruitandNut
July 27th, 2004, 04:32 AM
My simple understanding of time and matter is thus.

1/ All energy must contain matter, no matter how small.
2/ There is no such thing within the universe as a complete vacuum (even in politicians' heads).
3/ The closer to a vacuum the medium through which travel is taken the closer to an optimum
speed may be achieved, namely 983574900ft per sec.
4/ Large masses may appear to bend or stop light, smaller particles may deflect some of the
photons.
5/ Scientists have appeared to manipulate the speed of light from near optimum speed down to 38mph, 60mph is mentioned on the Web.
6/ As far as string theory has taken us, all matter in the universe is comprised of a single
basic 'building block' packaged in many different ways and under different conditions.
7/ Energy can neither be created or destroyed. Therefore before the big bang there was what -?
learned answers on a postcard please. Can we have a state without mass/energy? I used
to be told by learned scientists that radio waves had no mass, something I rejected as a small child as
irrational and impossible, my long held stance appears to be vindicated. If energy is eternal, is
it of God?(a very real part of God?), if that was so, the spirit world could also have
mass and measurable presence if we knew how to set up the test.
Maybe they are part of dimentions yet to be discovered.
8/ Light and time travel at a constant speed and it is our positional situation that makes the situation appear different. If the wavelength of 'time' could be stretched to infinity, would time come to a stop?
9/ Time is independent of light as time can appear to travel at the same speed through light or the absence of light.
10/ To think of the forth dimention it is better not to think of time, but to think in terms of up/down, front/back, & left/right, with left/right being replaced by a circular or variable situation.

FruitandNut
July 27th, 2004, 03:18 PM
I just read something the other day that said the newest thing was a horn shape. Like the old bugle like things they play when the king enters the room? I am looking for the article, but google isn't cooperating...

Here we go: <a href = "http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994879">Link to horn shaped universe.</a>

This is a little more recent, April 15 '04.

Okay, so given that the universe doesn't appear to be flat any longer, what now?

If the 'horn theory' is correct, may we assume that the 'younger' end of the Universe is at the wider 'bell' end and that as you work up towards the 'mouthpiece' the masses are older and have had more time for mutual gravitational forces to bring things together?

I did like the discus theory. Ah, well, being a Popparian, I should not be suprised at the decay of theories.

Galendir
July 27th, 2004, 04:16 PM
I used to be told by learned scientists that radio waves had no mass, something I rejected as a small child as irrational and impossible, my long held stance appears to be vindicated.Not so fast. That depends on what is meant by "mass". Methinks you are unfairly equivocating.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

Galendir
July 27th, 2004, 04:19 PM
All energy must contain matter, no matter how small.Energy doesn't "contain" matter. Energy and matter are different "states".

Galendir
July 27th, 2004, 04:20 PM
Energy can neither be created or destroyed. Therefore before the big bang there was what -?What do you mean "before" the Big Bang? ;)

Galendir
July 27th, 2004, 04:25 PM
Light and time travel at a constant speed and it is our positional situation that makes the situation appear different. If the wavelength of 'time' could be stretched to infinity, would time come to a stop?Are you sure this isn't gibberish?

FruitandNut
August 6th, 2004, 11:07 AM
Energy must have something that contains it, as far as I can comprehend it is a state that piggyback rides, and in doing so it influences the state of matter.

When I mentioned before the big bang, I did pop in a crucial ? I do not make a bald acclaimation of fact there, from that moment back we have or own conjecture or belief.

Conjecture and curiousity rather than outright gibberish. Have a bit of charity.

Galendir
August 6th, 2004, 01:29 PM
Conjecture and curiousity rather than outright gibberish. Have a bit of charity.I don't mean to be uncharitable. I didn't say it was gibberish. I'm just not sure that talk of the "wavelength of time [being] stretched to infinity" is even sensible.