[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

distance over time squared is defined as acceleration in physics. What we need is to define some kind of absolute acceleration. exponent of time higher than 2 still does not have any definable concept in physics.

Maybe t^n is equal to the acceleration of the previous acceleration (t^(n-1))?

That woudl make sense. For example, t^3 is equal to the acceleration of t^2's acceleration. Etz...Is it possible?

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE

Maybe t^n is equal to the acceleration of the previous acceleration (t^(n-1))?

The only detectable acceleration is the acceleration of gravity, which is described by the Principle of Equivalence between inertial mass and gravitational mass. This principle is the key to Einstein's general relativity.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

The only detectable acceleration is the acceleration of gravity, which is described by the Principle of Equivalence between inertial mass and gravitational mass. This principle is the key to Einstein's general relativity.

What if t^3 is the inertial acceleration in oppose to gravitational acceleration?

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE

What if t^3 is the inertial acceleration in oppose to gravitational acceleration?

To be meaningful of physical content it must be measurable. The Principle of Equivalence is really the equality of inertial force and gravitational force and then by their derived equations the equivalence of inertial mass and gravity mass. Removing the test mass from the equations implies that inertial accelertion is directly proportional to the mass origin and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between mass origin and the test mass and the universal gravitational constant becomes the proportionality constant.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

Final question: what is the present or future state of the universe? This cannot be answered by looking, not even by experiment, but only by guessing.

According to my theory life occupies a central role in the universe, and thus we assume that super-conscious intelligent life (like us) is timed to arise during the exact center of the universe's lifespan. Note: to an inside observer the lifespan of the universe is infinitely long, so in order to define the "middle" of this life span we give it a weighted average, whereby seconds towards the end of the universe don't count as much as seconds in the beginning simply because there is not as much interaction towards the end of the universe since the univer'ses matter/energy density is lessening. So to recap, the present state of the universe is that it is halfway complete in it's progression, right at the point where it must decide to be open or closed (regarding the curvature of space i.e. to continue expansion or begin contraction). Currently the universe appears flat, mostly due to the fact that we are at the central period in it's lifespan, but the future state of the universe is that it is open (that's where space is curved like a saddle right?) and the curvature of the universe will continue to grow. According to my theory that is.

ps. I like your theory about guessing, that's pretty much what I do

[AntonioLao]

Before the day for the chat about 'time', I had the thought that we are at the edge of the universe or very close to it. If the universe suddenly is destroyed we are the first to feel the impact. Two more compelling evidences are the flatness problem and expansion problem.

[sruthisupriya]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

Yes. And in addition, I am also implying even within our 3D universe, there may be dimensional levels of existence evident by the existence of fundamental forces.

But,all the fundamental forces that we know today are(to the best of my knowledge) useful only in describing the 4D space time of our system.Are you implying that as we go to higher dimensions, there might be other 'fundamental'forces at play?

[sruthisupriya]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

exponent of time higher than 2 still does not have any definable concept in physics.

Does time have any definable concept in physics?

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by sruthisupriya

Are you implying that as we go to higher dimensions, there might be other 'fundamental'forces at play?

Since these fundamental forces are covariance that is to say their forms are invariance under coordinate transformations, at higher dimensions they are the same forces written in more coordinates.

Originally Posted by sruthisupriya

Does time have any definable concept in physics?

Time is defined as a parameter in quantum physics and as a component of spacetime in general relativity and string theories. Its direction is connected to the thermodynamic concept of entropy.

[sruthisupriya]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

. Its direction is connected to the thermodynamic concept of entropy.

I donot understand.