Is time a closed loop?

[daniel l.]

1 minute ago, Urses said:

But you imply a concept behind and a concept need a conceptor and this will be a Judge Instance. And for everybody Inside the System it is a godlike Entity?

I cant really disprove that. But i doubt it, a concept does not need a conceptor. rather a randomization of values, we may be awestruck by the perfection of our universe, but it may be really a totally random deal. There is no reason to assume that the four primary dimensions cannot all be compacted into the primordial singularity, and that time itself is merely an element that was predefined.

[kerbiloid]

27 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

Yep, that's why time has only one direction in the observable universe and wasn't that OP's question ?

While the theoretical mechanics has no such restriction.
So, looks like not the time is anisotropic, but the pattern of the Universe looks not that simple.
(Or there is no "time" at all, but a spaghetti of dimensions (see the picture above))

Edited March 23, 2017 by kerbiloid

[YNM]

5 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

I am not sure whether i understood it, but at least number 4.) makes a common mistake: it assumes that the universe exploded into something. That is not the case. As the universe expands it creates it's own space, not like new points in a fixed coordinate system but like a balloon that is being blown up, distances between existing points become greater. There is no "around" or "outside".

Number 1.) is deprecated, as is 2.), 3.) was Einsteins favourite but Hubble's objection made the idea obsolete :-)

 

Also i am missing the widely accepted concept of an ever-expanding universe that get's ever darker over time (!) without an end.

Of course, views on this may change over time (!) as knowledge increases ...

Again: Cosmologists (i mean real scientists :-)) have written books on the topic ... :-)

 

 

I... suppose the real truth is more along "we don't know".

Also, please consider looking up the presentation he had in that site - stuffs way, way beyond any laymen's knowledge and thinking unless secretly you're someone really famous (or really should be famous).

EDIT : Maybe one thing why does the theories there sort of doesn't really fit any of the old ones is because they're new - AFAIK it's only now that we consider things previously unimaginable or uncountable or unsimulatable (few kind of DM and DE, Quantum systems on the scale of the universe, Schrodinger equation for GR...).

Edited March 23, 2017 by YNM

[Urses]

Hmm with @kerbiloid implikation time can/may be a partikle and if this partikle is hard coded for FOR/THEN than the op have the ability to say time is a Loop.

E: Oh that implikates that the universumshape is something like a MobiusBand?

Edited March 23, 2017 by Urses

[Green Baron]

45 minutes ago, daniel l. said:

..., we may be awestruck by the perfection of our universe, but it may be really a totally random deal. There is no reason to assume that the four primary dimensions cannot all be compacted into the primordial singularity, and that time itself is merely an element that was predefined.

Few things from my lay-understanding:

The universe isn't perfect. It just is. And there are three spacial dimensions to freely move in locally back and forth. Time is not predefined, it is as relative as can be. It will show a different behaviour depending on relative speed and the presence of gravitational forces, but always one direction or it leaves our observation.

We have already been through the "predefined" in the other thread. Question: do you accept Heisenberg's uncertainty relation ? If yes, then why do you insist ? If no, then there is no chance for us ... :-)

I don't know if the concept of a primordial singularity is in unison with current cosmological models. I don't think so ... need more info :-) blabla :-)

 

Edited March 23, 2017 by Green Baron

[daniel l.]

6 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

The universe isn't perfect. It just is. And there are three spacial dimensions to freely move in locally back and forth. Time is not predefined, it is as relative as can be. It will show a different behaviour depending on relative speed and the presence of gravitational forces, but always one direction or it leaves our observation.

Who says time is relative at all? Is it not possible that the 4th dimension is merely a timetable? Like a spreadsheet macro? Time itself is the hand that moves the universe.

 

15 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

We have already been through the "predefined" in the other thread. Question: do you accept Heisenberg's uncertainty relation ? If yes, then why do you insist ? If no, then there is no chance for us ... :-)

I fully understand and accept the concept the of Heisenberg's uncertainty, however. In my opinion, it does not prevent things from being pre planned. Though we cannot predict events with 100% accuracy, or many other things. there is no reason why it could not be predefined. Because if time is predefined, then the Universe is like a movie on loop, playing over and over again, with no variation or differentiation. The exact same thing happening over and over again infinitely.

[Green Baron]

14 minutes ago, daniel l. said:

Who says time is relative at all? Is it not possible that the 4th dimension is merely a timetable? Like a spreadsheet macro? Time itself is the hand that moves the universe.

 

I fully understand and accept the concept the of Heisenberg's uncertainty, however. In my opinion, it does not prevent things from being pre planned. Though we cannot predict events with 100% accuracy, or many other things. there is no reason why it could not be predefined. Because if time is predefined, then the Universe is like a movie on loop, playing over and over again, with no variation or differentiation. The exact same thing happening over and over again infinitely.

This is getting ... difficult. You neglect basic physical principles. I quit.

[daniel l.]

12 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

This is getting ... difficult. You neglect basic physical principles. I quit.

Alright then. I'm just trying to understand all this stuff myself.

[Urses]

31 minutes ago, daniel l. said:

Alright then. I'm just trying to understand all this stuff myself.

I try it again.

If a Prozess is predictable then you can predict every outcome every time.

If i bring you and your experiment im a sitution new to you you loose this abilty. 

You know Hydrogen is a Gas. What if we go for Jupter or Sun or Earthcore?

Prediction can only exist Inside known parameters. 

This means you can tend for one predicted outcome, but you must define parameters for this prediktion. And because you can only define parameters as known till there from you you never can define all parameters and this means you never can predigt a 100% outcome.

[daniel l.]

10 minutes ago, Urses said:

I try it again.

If a Prozess is predictable then you can predict every outcome every time.

If i bring you and your experiment im a sitution new to you you loose this abilty. 

You know Hydrogen is a Gas. What if we go for Jupter or Sun or Earthcore?

Prediction can only exist Inside known parameters. 

This means you can tend for one predicted outcome, but you must define parameters for this prediktion. And because you can only define parameters as known till there from you you never can define all parameters and this means you never can predigt a 100% outcome.

The idea of looping time should have nothing to do with predictability, the idea is simply that these things happened. Like a movie, they are already recorded, and are on repeat playback. Yes, we cannot predict every outcome, but that's not the point, my point is that everything is set in stone from the very beginning and is merely playing out according to predefined rules. No matter how unlikely something is to happen, if it happens, then it was supposed to happen, and will happen again next cycle. but no one will notice it next cycle because they too happened again.

[Urses]

If nobody knows that the time Loops nobody can be upseted by it.

If you are upseted this is information in there about looping. If there is informatuon there is a urge to change it. If there is a urge there is a try and following Change.

If there is a Change there is no loop.

Try this film may be it will help

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundhog_Day_(film)

Edited March 23, 2017 by Urses

[daniel l.]

7 minutes ago, Urses said:

If nobody knows that the time Loops nobody can be upseted by it.

If you are upseted this is information in there about looping. If there is informatuon there is a urge to change it. If there is a urge there is a try and following Change.

If there is a Change there is no loop.

Try this film may be it will help

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundhog_Day_(film)

But perhaps change is part of the loop as well? We may think we are cheating the system but might plainly be still on its rails. Time may in fact not be 100% linear. It could have folds, the possibility that paradoxes and alternate timelines are all part of the plan as well.

[Urses]

If there is a Alternative Timeline how can it be a Loop?

For looping you need to destroy everithing new than generate it new and than destroy it again for a fresh loop.

And you Talk Everything is Inside of the Loop. But for the Alternative Timeline there is a beginning and end. No loop anymore.

Because if they Split they are 2 times the Same Timeline with a Changing faktor and if you destroy One which One is the "original"?

Edited March 23, 2017 by Urses

[daniel l.]

23 minutes ago, Urses said:

If there is a Alternative Timeline how can it be a Loop?

For looping you need to destroy everithing new than generate it new and than destroy it again for a fresh loop.

And you Talk Everything is Inside of the Loop. But for the Alternative Timeline there is a beginning and end. No loop anymore.

Because if they Split they are 2 times the Same Timeline with a Changing faktor and if you destroy One which One is the "original"?

It's highly complex, but I can imagine that even alterations to the timeline would be factored into the loop.

 

Aaaannnndddd.... I'm getting more and more confused as time goes by.

[HebaruSan]

Here's a physical mechanism for something like the OP to happen, proposed by a credible figure. Not an exact repeat of our same history, but a chain of universes in which the high-entropy infinite expansion (after all the matter has gone into black holes and all the black holes have evaporated) of one phase is somehow mathematically equivalent to the low-entropy singularity of the next (I'm still trying to figure out how that works). By this concept, we'd be living in the super-extended heat death of previous universes, and he says you might be able to find evidence of them in the cosmic microwave background. (His powerpoint show looks weird because it was prepared on "transparencies," a clear-plastic writing technology that briefly replaced paper in the first two seasons of Babylon 5.)

 

[grawl]

15 hours ago, hms_warrior said:

i hate to spoil the party but

if(what if ${user.random thought} != science&spaceflight.){

       close thread;

};

Sorry to spoil a bit more, but i think you mis-phrased it.

To me it should be more like this :

if(user.random_thought != science & user.random_thought != spaceflight){

	moderator.close_thread();

}else{

	for each(reader in readers){

		if(reader.has_something_to_say(user.random_thought)){

			reader.talk_about(user.random_thought);

		}

	}

}

 

[Vanamonde]

Please stop criticizing each other's curiosity and discuss the question. 

[Green Baron]

Where to begin discussing whether life is a movie, the universe pre-programmed and time a spreadsheet macro ?

Edit: forget it ... if a mod feels urged to delete/edit this post then no problem, go ahead ... i am clueless.

Edited March 25, 2017 by Green Baron