[Graybeard]

Hi Neutralino ... Firstly, I only posted this thread as a bit of fun. And as such, I posted it in the 'Brainstorming' forum. Unfortunately only paid members can post in this area of ToeQuest. So Robert moved it for me so that it would be available to all.

Perhaps I could put a plug in for Robert here. Paid membership does not cost much, Servers and associated hardware cost money, so does the EMF force that drives them. A nice Chrissy present for Robert would be if paid membership increased....

Originally Posted by neutralino I'm not 100% sure what you mean here. The word that troubles me is "moment." Discounting the notions of past and future for now, it is not even true that the "present" is the same for every observer. For example, you can't have one guy sitting in the middle of the universe observing everything as the "present" since some of the things he will see are in the past! This is commonly known as the relativity of simultaneity. It's also why we rarely discuss global time, but instead assign light cones to each point in space.

The Relativity of Simultaneity as you say, implies that an observer will see things in the past (underlined above) and conversely ??? Which reduces to the fact that the past, present and future, since they can be observed from a single 'moment exist simultaneously.

I agree that the 'Moment' is the sticking point. How to define a Moment ??

Originally Posted by neutralino Freezing time does not make much sense to me, as it stands.

This was meant more as a 'what if' point of view. A brainstorming exercise. The fact that our arm, in the action of swinging a baseball or cricket bat is now in different motion in relation to our torso, in relation to our brain. This must also be governed by GR.

Originally Posted by neutralino Well, I think there would be infinitely many but no, this isn't too crazy!

Actually, I added this (parrallel universes) to the original post as an aside. But Austin, astute as ever, picked it up and elevated it to the credible .....

cool bananas ... greg

[dleviwing]

When we look into the night sky we can say what we see occurred in the past but the light we are seeing is in the here-and-now; at least within the functioning time of the eye. At best we can only say the photons we are seeing are so many years old and that’s only if you accept the idea of a moving light particle through space. We cannot see the past, move into the past, and the same goes for the future. Everything is the present for ALL OBSERVERS; we just can’t experience or measure every observers present at the same time; it’s all relative.

[N0B0DY]

"If you fire a gun at yourself from a quantum event, you will never feel death and will never die, but split into another multiverse."

I have to blow my horn at Austin here, Greg, if I may. He, like Dave above, has an uncanny ability to get to the root of these relative matters.

It is apparent that the subconscious mind, or whatever we wish to call it, has a tendency to cling to things; something, as it is, must be extended dimensionally both "internally" and "externally" always solely as time because, as Pat implies, there is no literal farm in the past and its required space must go with it.

Though the "moment" doesn't exist, it is nevertheless representative of the fullness of what lies between observer and observed; and further, though subject to interpretation, I would wager that Einstein was correct in assessment of illusory spacetime.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY Superluminal is faster than light, whereas subluminal is slower than light. The cap on light, and its correlation with consciousness, is based on the time it takes for light to traverse through media - or the “vacuum” - in order to be observed. Everything is processed according to signals, and signals can’t go faster than they do, which in the observable universe is “c.”

OK .. I understand ... but I don't know of anything faster than light. This limits our processing to a max of 'c'. But the chemical and biological processes involved would in reality make this much slower ?

Originally Posted by N0B0DY Since the speed is based on the observable density, the infinite refinement of this density results in an infinite increase in speed up to absolute speed which is zero - the absolute point where the “slowest-possible” and “fastest-possible” speeds merge because any event can be recreated anywhere in no time.

I think I understand how any constant speed could be related to zero. Are you saying that 'refining the density' of the medium of spacetime is the 'causation' of the past - future ?

Originally Posted by N0B0DY The scalar fields are abridged unquantized (without discrete amounts) from what would be the universal perspective, but because we’re not the universe there are two perspectives with which to break up our spacetime into discrete amounts, calculate our times and masses, etc.. The atomic particles are the smallest composite systems we can be conscious of due to the limit of divisibility, beyond which I classify as subatomic.

So from the Universal perspective, the past present and future are all observable ?

cool bananas ... greg

[Profpat]

Hi Greg;

I think in theory the initial spatial inflation was a lot quicker than the speed of light. Whether that was ether, strings, or some other fundamental substance.

Best,

Pat

[Graybeard]

Yes Pat ... I agree with you on this too.

I should have been more particular. The expansion of space has no limit that I have heard of.

In the sense of my reply I thought that Nobody was referring to Tachyons or some such.

cool bananas ... greg

[Graybeard]

I found a new word ..... Presentism

Presentism (philosophy of time) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In the philosophy of time, presentism is the belief that only the present exists and the future and the past are unreal. Past and future "entities" are to be construed as logical constructions or fictions. The opposite of presentism is 'eternalism', which is the belief that things in the past and things yet to come exist eternally. One other view (that has not been held by very many philosophers) is sometimes called the 'growing block' theory of time, which is a theory that takes the past and present to exist but the future to be nonexistent. Presentism is compatible with Galilean relativity, in which time is independent of space but is probably incompatible with Lorentzian/Einsteinian relativity in conjunction with certain other philosophical theses which many find uncontroversial. Presentism can also be used more loosely to refer to a narrow focus on the conditions of the moment.

more on Presentism......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present...phy_of_time%29

more on Eternalism.........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal...phy_of_time%29

cool bananas ... greg

[N0B0DY]

Greg,

The processes you mentioned are related to the media I mentioned, so the correlation is exactly proportionate in all instances; the vacuum is also the opposite of what is commonly thought of as empty, but absolutely full - without any holes or space; and this latter reference implies that if there is no space, then the source of the signal and destination are the same point in spacetime. Similar to what Pat brought up about inflation of space, though allegedly expanding into time, there is no dimensional existence for a literal inflation and is the reason I infer it is an impossibility - it can't expand into that which isn't there. So the point before the big bang can't very well have changed in the slightest. Yet because this point is equal to two absolute states, it is both absolutely expanded and contracted simultaneously, allowing for an infinite number of relative velocities and densities to result as abstractions (existing in no particular place and time) within the absolute states. (Not meant to be pondered without first notifying you physician.)

The second part is right on because absolute fullness would equate to the "fully present" or omnipresent, and a reduction of which results in forward and backward perceptions of time. Yet the fullness, in the absolute sense, is synonymous to vacuity. Both states are the same impenetrable state - nothing can go through it, and nothing doesn't exist.

The last part is inferred to be an impossible state of existence, so I noted "what would be the absolute perspective." to imply that when the past, present and future are absolutely unified time doesn't exist - is unobservable because observation is dependent upon differential factors. Perhaps to consider it more clearly we can imagine light or space as representing time, and the absolute as the state that would exist when space is either reduced to zero or expanded to one impossible whole.

[dipayankar]

Hi Greg... again I caome back to my stupid question. Where is space expanding to? Is it within itself, or is it expanding to some other dimension that we humans cant comprehend??

Originally Posted by Graybeard Yes Pat ... I agree with you on this too. I should have been more particular. The expansion of space has no limit that I have heard of. In the sense of my reply I thought that Nobody was referring to Tachyons or some such. cool bananas ... greg

[sillysally]

I time traveled last night in my dream. I saw a woman holding a newborn baby in a house I recognized. The woman looked like my childhood friend (I was in her house) but it wasn't her, it was a younger version of her mother holding my friend as an infant. She is a year older than me and I wasn't born yet when I had this vision of her being held.