The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Why Linear Time "Flow" insists that the universe must be finite?  (Read 1733 times)

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Why Linear Time "Flow" makes it impossible for the universe to be eternal?

It goes something like this in a hypothetical eternal universe the "Start" point of time would be pushed back into the infinite past which would mean the arrow of time could never reach the present a real paradox.

Like the original photon of light or moment of time, which flow or speed are both finite, being pushed back into the eternal past. With the result of time never reaching the present, meaning the part of the universe we exist in, (namely our solar system) could never have come into existence

Without a beginning of time there would be no zero entropic state , because entropy could not increase because it can only increase in conjunction with the arrow of time "shooting" from the present into the future (in fact entropy would not/could not be a fundamental reality in an eternal universe)

I have a headache guys correct me if my logic is wrong I am a mere mortal!

Regards

Alan


 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
One important point of note would be that you can't make up a theoretical eternal universe and then within it compare it to our 'present', since we're talking about two completely different references of time that could never possibly coexist, regardless of whether that universe was eternal or not.  Our present is only relevant in our universe.  It cannot be compared in any other.  That may be part of what's confusing you. 

But in that eternal universe dust clouds would've still collapsed, stars still would've formed, the left over dust and gas would still have formed planets, and over billions of years those planets could've still ultimately harbored life, and evolution over billions of years still could've through survival of the fittest and other processes formed apes which then further evolved to become humans. But those humans would still be in their present, not ours. 
« Last Edit: 07/07/2016 18:30:38 by IAMREALITY »
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
One important point of note would be that you can't make up a theoretical eternal universe and then within it compare it to our 'present', since we're talking about two completely different references of time that could never possibly coexist, regardless of whether that universe was eternal or not.  Our present is only relevant in our universe.  It cannot be compared in any other.  That may be part of what's confusing you. 

But in that eternal universe dust clouds would've still collapsed, stars still would've formed, the left over dust and gas would still have formed planets, and over billions of years those planets could've still ultimately harbored life, and evolution over billions of years still could've through survival of the fittest and other processes formed apes which then further evolved to become humans. But those humans would still be in their present, not ours.

I did not mean to compare this "thought experiment hypothetical universe" with the reality of ours, of course coexistence is an impossibility.

Yes I am confused thus my thread how could anything happen in a universe with no beginning, without a beginning entropy could only happen if there were a flow of linear time. Energy can only be useful due to the increase of entropy flow from a high more ordered state to a lower state.

Without time there could be no entropy to convert energy from one state to the other for useful work to occur.
In my opinion in an eternal universe nothing would happen and it would remain static and dead in an eternal "now" (Of course my use of eternal is a contradiction but is was just a term I used in this context to get over my point)
 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
Since it's a hypothetical made up circumstance it contains the challenges that go along with such things. 

First, I fail to see why time would not still be able to flow in a linear fashion merely because it had no technical beginning.  I fail to see why overall things wouldn't still be similar to what we see in real life. 

But it's also a made up scenario. Time being eternal with no beginning would be a different time than we know.  So none of our rules would technically apply, so we couldn't use any of it as a basis in forming an answer.  And that may be why you have a headache.  Because you're trying to use the things you know, and concepts of time and space you know, against a completely different type of time of which none of it applies to. 

Our time was created along with space at the big bang.  A time with no beginning would have to have a whole different set of physic fact associated with it. Only understanding those facts would allow us to postulate answers.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Since it's a hypothetical made up circumstance it contains the challenges that go along with such things. 

First, I fail to see why time would not still be able to flow in a linear fashion merely because it had no technical beginning.  I fail to see why overall things wouldn't still be similar to what we see in real life. 

But it's also a made up scenario. Time being eternal with no beginning would be a different time than we know.  So none of our rules would technically apply, so we couldn't use any of it as a basis in forming an answer.  And that may be why you have a headache.  Because you're trying to use the things you know, and concepts of time and space you know, against a completely different type of time of which none of it applies to. 

Our time was created along with space at the big bang.  A time with no beginning would have to have a whole different set of physic fact associated with it. Only understanding those facts would allow us to postulate answers.

Maybe all that time is, is something we invented to make sense out of movement and is just a local concocted measurement, that does not apply to the whole universe. (Time is not of course an absolute.)

In infinite eternal universe, things would have to pop in and out of existence, by appearing in its own locality and unique frame of reference, without at first being relative to anything other an itself. In much the same manner observed in the quantum world
 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile

Maybe all that time is, is something we invented to make sense out of movement and is just a local concocted measurement, that does not apply to the whole universe. (Time is not of course an absolute.)

No, time is woven in spacetime, with mountains of evidence to support it.  Rest assured it applies throughout the universe. 


Quote
In infinite eternal universe, things would have to pop in and out of existence, by appearing in its own locality and unique frame of reference, without at first being relative to anything other an itself. In much the same manner observed in the quantum world

For the life of me I can't find why this would have any bearing in reality nor understand why this would have to be so.  What makes you believe this is how it would have to work?
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Alan McDougall
Why Linear Time "Flow" makes it impossible for the universe to be eternal?
To be honest Alan, I don't even know what that sentence means. Please clarify it for me.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Alan McDougall
Why Linear Time "Flow" makes it impossible for the universe to be eternal?
To be honest Alan, I don't even know what that sentence means. Please clarify it for me.

What I am trying to convey if there were a hypothetical universe eternal universe in which the arrow of time moves from the past to the present into the eternal future, in a linear way like it does in our universe, we have a paradox?

<<No beginning <<<.Time......<.Past Eternity<...............<Time> future   > infinite  gap     "Never Reach now"    > ?                     

Then?

The arrow of time would never have a point in time or a beginning and the arrow of time would never have reached us in the present meaning, we would not exist.

Like Usain Bolt, he waits for the start gun but finds he is receding infinitely backward into the past eternity, meaning no matter how hard he tries he will never get to the finish line, which is the present that the audience is waiting for him to appear and break to tape. We are the audience and will wait forever but Usain will never break the finish line tape

Time equates to Usain Bolt and our existence equates to our "Now" which leaves us with a paradox or oxymoron meaning we exist but we can not exist?   

In fact, I think it is more of a philosophical question than a scientific one, but I know I am not the only one who have postulated this question, in a science debate
« Last Edit: 12/07/2016 01:58:22 by Alan McDougall »
 

Offline captcass

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
You are seeing time the wrong way. Time is completely relative. The only thing that matters is the relative rates of time in different reference frames. Space/time is eternal and the universe is PERCEPTUALLY infinite and eternal, thus so are space/time.
I develop this fully in my paper "Relativistic Derivations of Gravity, Dark Matter, the Hubble Shift and Foundational Particle Physics". These derivations disprove the accelerating expanding universe theory and eliminate the need for "dark energy" and "dark matter". I can't post a link here, but if you search for the paper and download it off of viXra, I trust you will find your answer. Isn't it about time? :)
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
You are seeing time the wrong way. Time is completely relative. The only thing that matters is the relative rates of time in different reference frames. Space/time is eternal and the universe is PERCEPTUALLY infinite and eternal, thus so are space/time.
I develop this fully in my paper "Relativistic Derivations of Gravity, Dark Matter, the Hubble Shift and Foundational Particle Physics". These derivations disprove the accelerating expanding universe theory and eliminate the need for "dark energy" and "dark matter". I can't post a link here, but if you search for the paper and download it off of viXra, I trust you will find your answer. Isn't it about time? :)

You are partly right time is relatively even to the extent that it even flows faster at your feet than it does at your head. But on a macro scale you whole body is moving into the future, thus the entire universe by extrapolation is moving into the future, if this were not the case, no one could say that 14 billion years have gone by since the creative event of the Big Bang.

Please post the link to your paper I am always open to unique ways of looking at reality

A very warm welcome to this great forum!!

Alan McDougall
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3812
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
IAMREALITY

"through survival of the fittest and other processes formed apes which then further evolved to become humans. But those humans would still be in their present, not ours.  "

This is not the modern view of evolution it is thought that humans and apes both evolved from a common ancestor not apes into humans.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
IAMREALITY

"through survival of the fittest and other processes formed apes which then further evolved to become humans. But those humans would still be in their present, not ours.  "

This is not the modern view of evolution it is thought that humans and apes both evolved from a common ancestor not apes into humans.

Allow me to go off-topic, please!

If we and the apes originate from a common ancestor, why is it then that there is no fossil record of chimpanzee evolution?.
 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
IAMREALITY

"through survival of the fittest and other processes formed apes which then further evolved to become humans. But those humans would still be in their present, not ours.  "

This is not the modern view of evolution it is thought that humans and apes both evolved from a common ancestor not apes into humans.
Who cares.  It wasn't meant to be technical but rather generic and to just make a point, which is the same either way. 
 

Offline captcass

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
You are seeing time the wrong way. Time is completely relative. The only thing that matters is the relative rates of time in different reference frames. Space/time is eternal and the universe is PERCEPTUALLY infinite and eternal, thus so are space/time.
I develop this fully in my paper "Relativistic Derivations of Gravity, Dark Matter, the Hubble Shift and Foundational Particle Physics". These derivations disprove the accelerating expanding universe theory and eliminate the need for "dark energy" and "dark matter". I can't post a link here, but if you search for the paper and download it off of viXra, I trust you will find your answer. Isn't it about time? :)

You are partly right time is relatively even to the extent that it even flows faster at your feet than it does at your head. But on a macro scale you whole body is moving into the future, thus the entire universe by extrapolation is moving into the future, if this were not the case, no one could say that 14 billion years have gone by since the creative event of the Big Bang.

Please post the link to your paper I am always open to unique ways of looking at reality

A very warm welcome to this great forum!!

Alan McDougall

Thank you, Alan. I don't think I can post a link on this site, or am I wrong about that? If you Google the paper's title it should come right up.
P.S. You have it backwards, time is faster at your head.
Cass
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
I don't think I can post a link on this site, or am I wrong about that?
You can post links, but the site software has been poorly set up so the button to do it is no longer available, you need to enter the BB code manually:

[url=your_url_here]caption_text_here[/url]
« Last Edit: 12/07/2016 15:29:33 by dlorde »
 

Offline captcass

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
I don't think I can post a link on this site, or am I wrong about that?
You can post links, but the site software has been poorly set up so the button to do it is no longer available, you need to enter the BB code manually:


Sorry, I get a message saying external links cannot be posted. If you just Google "Relativistic Derivations of Gravity, Dark Matter, the Hubble Shift and Foundational Particle Physics" the abstract site will come up and you can download the full PDF there.
Cass
 

Offline captcass

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Hi Alan;
Colin went ahead and posted the link for me. It is at http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=67590.new;topicseen#new
Cass
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
You are seeing time the wrong way. Time is completely relative. The only thing that matters is the relative rates of time in different reference frames. Space/time is eternal and the universe is PERCEPTUALLY infinite and eternal, thus so are space/time.
I develop this fully in my paper "Relativistic Derivations of Gravity, Dark Matter, the Hubble Shift and Foundational Particle Physics". These derivations disprove the accelerating expanding universe theory and eliminate the need for "dark energy" and "dark matter". I can't post a link here, but if you search for the paper and download it off of viXra, I trust you will find your answer. Isn't it about time? :)

You are partly right time is relatively even to the extent that it even flows faster at your feet than it does at your head. But on a macro scale you whole body is moving into the future, thus the entire universe by extrapolation is moving into the future, if this were not the case, no one could say that 14 billion years have gone by since the creative event of the Big Bang.

Please post the link to your paper I am always open to unique ways of looking at reality

A very warm welcome to this great forum!!

Alan McDougall

Thank you, Alan. I don't think I can post a link on this site, or am I wrong about that? If you Google the paper's title it should come right up.
P.S. You have it backwards, time is faster at your head.
Cass

My mistake your head is further away from the gravity field of the earth and time is faster up there!
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
You are seeing time the wrong way. Time is completely relative. The only thing that matters is the relative rates of time in different reference frames. Space/time is eternal and the universe is PERCEPTUALLY infinite and eternal, thus so are space/time.
I develop this fully in my paper "Relativistic Derivations of Gravity, Dark Matter, the Hubble Shift and Foundational Particle Physics". These derivations disprove the accelerating expanding universe theory and eliminate the need for "dark energy" and "dark matter". I can't post a link here, but if you search for the paper and download it off of viXra, I trust you will find your answer. Isn't it about time? :)

You are partly right time is relatively even to the extent that it even flows faster at your feet than it does at your head. But on a macro scale you whole body is moving into the future, thus the entire universe by extrapolation is moving into the future, if this were not the case, no one could say that 14 billion years have gone by since the creative event of the Big Bang.

Please post the link to your paper I am always open to unique ways of looking at reality

A very warm welcome to this great forum!!

Alan McDougall

Thank you, Alan. I don't think I can post a link on this site, or am I wrong about that? If you Google the paper's title it should come right up.
P.S. You have it backwards, time is faster at your head.
Cass

My mistake your head is further away from the gravity field of the earth and time is faster up there!
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
You are seeing time the wrong way. Time is completely relative. The only thing that matters is the relative rates of time in different reference frames. Space/time is eternal and the universe is PERCEPTUALLY infinite and eternal, thus so are space/time.
I develop this fully in my paper "Relativistic Derivations of Gravity, Dark Matter, the Hubble Shift and Foundational Particle Physics". These derivations disprove the accelerating expanding universe theory and eliminate the need for "dark energy" and "dark matter". I can't post a link here, but if you search for the paper and download it off of viXra, I trust you will find your answer. Isn't it about time? :)

You are partly right time is relatively even to the extent that it even flows faster at your feet than it does at your head. But on a macro scale you whole body is moving into the future, thus the entire universe by extrapolation is moving into the future, if this were not the case, no one could say that 14 billion years have gone by since the creative event of the Big Bang.

Please post the link to your paper I am always open to unique ways of looking at reality

A very warm welcome to this great forum!!

Alan McDougall

Thank you, Alan. I don't think I can post a link on this site, or am I wrong about that? If you Google the paper's title it should come right up.
P.S. You have it backwards, time is faster at your head.
Cass

My mistake time is faster at your head like you say because it is further from the gravity field of the earth.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
You are seeing time the wrong way. Time is completely relative. The only thing that matters is the relative rates of time in different reference frames. Space/time is eternal and the universe is PERCEPTUALLY infinite and eternal, thus so are space/time.
I develop this fully in my paper "Relativistic Derivations of Gravity, Dark Matter, the Hubble Shift and Foundational Particle Physics". These derivations disprove the accelerating expanding universe theory and eliminate the need for "dark energy" and "dark matter". I can't post a link here, but if you search for the paper and download it off of viXra, I trust you will find your answer. Isn't it about time? :)

You are partly right time is relatively even to the extent that it even flows faster at your feet than it does at your head. But on a macro scale you whole body is moving into the future, thus the entire universe by extrapolation is moving into the future, if this were not the case, no one could say that 14 billion years have gone by since the creative event of the Big Bang.

Please post the link to your paper I am always open to unique ways of looking at reality

A very warm welcome to this great forum!!

Alan McDougall

Thank you, Alan. I don't think I can post a link on this site, or am I wrong about that? If you Google the paper's title it should come right up.
P.S. You have it backwards, time is faster at your head.
Cass

My mistake time is faster at your head like you say because it is further from the gravity field of the earth.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length