[subversion]

Originally Posted by <<>> the actual problem is that nothing defines that we are going backwards or forwards, and we will probably never notice it, here I'm not looking at time as a dimension, but more as the motion of things. the universe could have started inmensily big (although for human logic and in life, it is ussually the other way round) and end up being a extremely small object becoming nothing at a point.

Indubitably. I would even propose that our universe did start immensily big and will end immensely small, it's just that with respect to this sequence we are running in reverse time. As you said, for the purpose of human logic we always consider ourselves to be running forward in time, although whether it can really be considered forward or backward is entirely subjective. But I disagree with you that we cannot define our direction in time. Our direction in time is characterized by the fact that entropy is always on the rise. In a reverse-sequence version of our universe, entropy would always decrease, just like a video that's being played backwards.

In actuality I think that time runs in both directions at all times (time is arbitrary), but we only experience one direction. In this manner, we are constantly intersecting with reverse time at every instantaneous moment. Right now is happening forward and backward, so is right now, so is right now. The sequence, however, only happens in one direction, or at least we only experience it in one direction. But again, our sequence is always in reverse with respect to an opposite one, so yes you can't really define which is which. However, with respect to just one universe unto itself we say by default that entropy increases when time is running forward for that universe. It may be that conscious creatures only experience time that runs "forward."

[Guille]

Originally Posted by subversion Indubitably. I would even propose that our universe did start immensily big and will end immensely small, it's just that with respect to this sequence we are running in reverse time. As you said, for the purpose of human logic we always consider ourselves to be running forward in time, although whether it can really be considered forward or backward is entirely subjective. But I disagree with you that we cannot define our direction in time. Our direction in time is characterized by the fact that entropy is always on the rise. In a reverse-sequence version of our universe, entropy would always decrease, just like a video that's being played backwards. In actuality I think that time runs in both directions at all times (time is arbitrary), but we only experience one direction. In this manner, we are constantly intersecting with reverse time at every instantaneous moment. Right now is happening forward and backward, so is right now, so is right now. The sequence, however, only happens in one direction, or at least we only experience it in one direction. But again, our sequence is always in reverse with respect to an opposite one, so yes you can't really define which is which. However, with respect to just one universe unto itself we say by default that entropy increases when time is running forward for that universe. It may be that conscious creatures only experience time that runs "forward."

Yes. And all this is without expecting other time dimensions, becausethe the level of freedom would be infinite.

But lets stick to the subject "light speed".

[davidgow77]

This is all very interesting, but is ostensibly in the field of Cosmolgy which I am not well versed in. I am interested in modualr cosmogony and a subject I like to call hOLISTICS, WHICH INVOLVES LOOKING CLOSELY AT THE BIG PROBLEMS OF SCIENTIFIC PHILOSOPHY.

[subversion]

oh yes, sorry for the digression. But yeah, I think that going faster than the speed of light is elementary. I think it may not be long before we do it.

can ya'll please describe to me what Tachyon teleportation is, and also modular cosmogony

[davidgow77]

Tachyon teleportation is a concept used to circumvent Einsteins stipulation that nothing (no 3-d, mass carrying object) can travel faster than the speed of light. Tachyon teleportation is where phenomena travels so fast that the human brain cannot keep up with its movement, and it appears to teleport. This would explain the behaviour of quarks in space.... they "hop" from location to location. Modular cosmogony is essentially an assertion that all phenomena should be represented in a modular format that allows us to make predicitions about behaviour of any given systems that we analyse. Bohr diagrams and Feynman diagrams are good examples, but so are Reiman diagrams, pie charts, Minkowski sapce time.... essentially are are visually/modular based tool of communication used for the extrapolation of proofs.... which must always be represented by calculus.

DG

[undef00]

phantasies unlimited - for a limited time only

faster than speed of light? no!

but on the other hand yes!

yes -because i do assume (sure there is lot of science not agreeing i can suppose and some others might have come up with the same thing) light doesn't "travel" at 299,792,458 meters per second (in general i don't agree with any constants in an universal meaning) at every point of view at least if you just go to detect the origin (and if you're kind of facing the ray of the light it would be possible i further assume to kind of instantenous (it is not travelling but kind of virtually stretching towards you) deliver any kind of information from one galaxy to another galaxy - sure that will require at one side lot of power to install such a "signal lamp" which emits in an acceptable term a signal for the other side to receive and process the signal (sure that will require perfectly shaped fine tuning) - even i suppose the latter easier to build than a real powerful and 100% controlled light (something like gamma-rays and beyond would make a better job i guess) emitter - sure that technology hurdle also does favor to other possible intelligent species (even if just evolving) in our universe we can assume - but we even may be capable of getting something to know what we shouldn't know.

phantasy always wants more ....

back to reality:

in general i don't understand why we do think about travelling faster or as fast or not even close to light - by that time we have advanced speed to reach for the very first time interstellar space in a reasonable period of time we will be rather satisfied that just information (or a similar expression upgraded) has to be transferred to get us kind of travelling around. it further allows a possible contact to another intelligent species a more or less controlled "meeting" ... sure i personally wouldn't travel to a less advanced species compared to humans by that time ... again ... my phantasy wants more ... sorry!

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by undef00 in general i don't agree with any constants in an universal meaning

As I have mentioned in other posts, nature is abounded with all sorts of natural constants. And whether you agree or not, the constant body temperature of a healthy human being is set at 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit or 37 degrees Celsius. A few degrees more or less, you die. Temperature can be expressed in terms of mass, energy, pressure, volume, and density with the help of other constants. So, if you generally don’t agree with any of these physical concepts you are basically disagreeing with everything else.

[undef00]

i don't agree with everything - it is just not exact enough to me!

[dleviwing]

No….. The speed of light is NOT a constant.

The MEASUREMENT of the speed of light in a vacuum is constant for all reference frames.

[undef00]

what do you exactly mean by that?

sometimes my english just isn't good enough...

sure i could try to solve that because it is just one sentence:

The MEASUREMENT of the speed of light in a vacuum is constant for all reference frames.

it kind of confused me ....

especially please explain to me how that can be proofed ....

and just for the fun of it:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050831071025.htm
(i didn't read all)

i would accept that speed of light=boundless (as a "constant") - now i confused myself ....