[timemachine (OP)]

Many of our posts dance around the same issues regarding our universe.  Many things we will never know, absolutely,  because there are some things, even physical things, that are unknowable.

My view may not be the truth, but it is my current best viewpoint regarding the question about whether the universe is finite or infinite that has been teasing mankind for millennia.

However, humanity is audacious enough to offer opinions on anything, so here is my current audacious view of a possible reality.

First, I need to eliminate "time" as a physical entity.  We humans are very good at mixing and getting the observed confused with our innate thoughts as the observer.

Therefore,  I will, up front, state my opinion that time is not a real physical thing and is a mental concept that we have  adopted to explain relative motion and all of it's ramifications.

Further, without this  concept we cannot understand anything because all memories and events in our lives are at their root a product of motion.   

We need to guard against this mental danger at every possible opportunity, otherwise, we are at risk of following virtually any poorly founded path.

At this point I need to return to the previously stated point that " some things, even physical things, are Unknowable"  and therefore we  venture out of the realm of physics into the realm of physics philosophy when we trek upon the path of proposing the primary constituents of the universe.

Here is a description of "My Universe" which is squarely, I think, within the physics philosophy realm: 

My Universe is everything that is, and is both eternal and infinite as a whole.  However,  it exists as a dichotomy of two distinct parts that are absolute opposites that, therefore, mutually define each other.                                    The first part is an absolutely pure, cohesive, indivisible, finite energy bubble, that is eternally located at the center of the universe, primarily because it is cohesive,  and contains constantly transforming energy sub forms of differing densities and properties which are eternally surrounded by the second part that is an absolutely pure zero energy void, excluding space which is a sub form of energy. The energy part expands and contracts in volume according to the changing percentages of each energy sub form but the quantity of energy is constant and finite.  This perspective avoids extending energy to infinity but still allows the universe "as a whole" to be infinite and provides for a philosophically logical whole.   I, certainly, do not intend, or expect, this perspective to be taken as a view that can be accepted by the standards of real  physics which require quantifiable measurements.   

In addition, I think, this description of entropy is consistent with the physics philosophy previously expressed:
I think,  the description of the entropy evolution of the energy part of our universe from a low entropy pre big bang through an ever increasing entropy until there becomes  a dissipation of most, if not all, particles into the high entropy of space energy, seems to make sense.   The transformation of a low entropy hot energy universe into a high entropy cold energy universe seems to be a very slow, volume increasing, process. It's transformation from the ultimate high entropy state  to a hot low entropy state is, I suspect, very fast.  Once the energy part of the universe becomes nothing but the energy of empty space, ( assuming that to be the lowest density form of energy that  can expand in volume no further, at this point  entropy reaches an inherent maximum )  then, it has only one direction to proceed which is to decrease in volume into a hot low entropy state which explodes with a big bang followed by another half cycle of  subsequent entropy increase. Then it bounces back and forth eternally.
Regards,

[evan_au]

I need to eliminate "time" as a physical entity. ...
My Universe is everything that is, and is ... eternal

If there is no time, then everything is eternal, including the coin in my hand stamped with "2006".

I will, up front, state my opinion that time is not a real physical thing and is a mental concept that we have have adopted to explain relative motion and all of it's ramifications.

It is true that the "2006" on the coin is mental: a number in my mind.
But it is also physical: an imprint on the coin, which was formed by a moving metal press in the mint.

entropy evolution

"Entropy evolution" implies time.

The Greek philosopher Zeno toyed with some ideas like this - that there was no such thing as time or motion.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_of_Elea

No matter how good he was as a philosopher, he failed as a mathematician - he could not imagine that adding an infinite quantity of things (no matter how small) could amount to a finite quantity.

[timemachine (OP)]

If there is no time, then everything is eternal, including the coin in my hand stamped with "2006".

Absolutely true!

It is true that the "2006" on the coin is mental: a number in my mind.
But it is also physical: an imprint on the coin, which was formed by a moving metal press in the mint.

The physical coin and it's number were formed by motions and, as such, are a record of those motions. In observing the physical coin our minds concoct a mental image of where this record fits in a mental serial sequence of other events that are also records created by motions. This mental process is our concept of time by which we attempt to gain more understanding of the record under consideration. This process which itself is dependent on motions within our brain creates more records that are a part of our brains goal of understanding. 

"Entropy evolution" implies time.
The Greek philosopher Zeno toyed with some ideas like this - that there was no such thing as time or motion.

Actually, entropy implies and is directly associated with motion which is a real physical thing. Therefore, I agree with Zeno that time is not a physical thing, however, motion is. It is we the observer of the motions that are associated with the ideas of entropy that inject an implication of time because the time concept is a part of our mental method to attempt to understand motion.

No matter how good he was as a philosopher, he failed as a mathematician - he could not imagine that adding an infinite quantity of things (no matter how small) could amount to a finite quantity.

  I agree with Zeno that adding an infinite quantity of anything will never achieve a finite result because an infinite process is automatically a process that will be eternal in that it can never end. This conclusion has everything to do with logic and adding but nothing to do with any higher mathematics.

[andreasva]

You and I are considering nearly identical paradigms for our universe.

Consider for a moment that infinity is a state, which essentially defines raw space.  When I say raw, I mean it is physically not a part of our reality.  This raw space I consider infinity.  Infinity to me implies motion.  It's that edge you reach out to touch, but it always keeps drifting just out of reach. It just keeps going endlessly while trying to find maximum scale or resolution.  And that's a two way street leading in and out.  It is the vastness and the nothingness simultaneously defining each other in a codependent manner.  The further out it stretches, the closer to nothing it gets, but it's never able to become everything and nothing in the process, so it just keeps going.

It is the two halves of infinity that drive existence.  Infinity is the engine of creation, not a concept in the minds of mankind, but not physically part of our reality at the same time.  Infinity flows through us, and we are a finite, and a perpetual reflection of the greater process.  We are simultaneously expanding and contracting, for a net gain of 0.

I imagine the rate of the process as constant, blossoming out in a spherical manner, so the volume grows at an exponential rate, and the potential to be nothing grows at the inverse rate.  V=4/3*π*r^3*C^2

The cosmos exists between this infinite process in a perpetual manner.

The only place we differ is location.  I consider there are an infinitely rising number of universes, and we're a mere speck of dust in the aftermath of the process.  One of countless. 

" some things, even physical things, are Unknowable"

I would also have to disagree with this statement.  Everything in my view is knowable.  There's an answer for everything. It's the verification process where we run into trouble.  We can't validate every single hypothesis with physical evidence, so we have to eventually trust our logic and reasoning on the problem.

Here's another idea that will bake your noodle...

I contemplate a perpetual universe continually going through this process of creation and inhalation.  A perpetual series of big bangs.  They're all bound together in the evolution of our universe, like a string of pearls.  Our concept of time, which is really rooted in a physical awareness of past events, while predicting future events, is simply bound to this string of pearls.  We remember past events, because we have lived past events.  When we experience an event in the present, it binds that event to the past pearl strand event forming a cohesive memory, in an entanglement process.  We can never know exactly what the future holds for us because the future event is still unbound to a past pearl strand event in the present, so future events are a bit more cloudy, or uncertain.  Maybe Deja Vu is a bit more real than we give it credit for.

The universe is mind boggling...  So many possibilities, so little time to explore them all... 

[guest39538]

First, I need to eliminate "time" as a physical entity.

Then you failed in the first line to explain the universe.

[timemachine (OP)]

Quote from: timemachine on Yesterday at 00:36:06
First, I need to eliminate "time" as a physical entity.
Then you failed in the first line to explain the universe.

Obviously, I have failed to explain anything about the universe TO YOU.  That, in my opinion, is because you seem to be hung up on insisting that time is a physical reality in spite of the lack of any physical evidence.  As you know, I think time is just a mental concept that helps us to understand the dynamics of motion and thereby helps us understand EVERYTHING.

[guest39538]

Quote from: timemachine on Yesterday at 00:36:06
First, I need to eliminate "time" as a physical entity.
Then you failed in the first line to explain the universe.

Obviously, I have failed to explain anything about the universe TO YOU.  That, in my opinion, is because you seem to be hung up on insisting that time is a physical reality in spite of the lack of any physical evidence.  As you know, I think time is just a mental concept that helps us to understand the dynamics of motion and thereby helps us understand EVERYTHING.

Well I do not think anything , the objective facts are there to observe.   Are you suggesting things do not physically age?

Evidence of time.   

Time is a quantifiable measurement of a duration of existence.   A duration of existence can speed up or slow down, it depends how close you are to a star or gravitational body.   Additionally a duration of existence can be cut short by unforeseen events, like the poor snowman I built the other week was unlucky the sun come out or ''he'' would still be there.

You are mistaking space-time which is timeless,  to actual time which is dependent to any bodies change of entropy .   

Time is entropy , entropy is existing, entropy has frequency of change that is a variate.


You do not believe in time because it as never been explained correctly to you before now.  Physics explains time is its measurement, a really poor explanation. 

[guest39538]

ext.jpg (16.7 kB . 740x464 - viewed 3435 times)

[guest39538]

ext1.jpg (16.32 kB . 740x464 - viewed 2985 times)


Don't let ''them'' tell you otherwise in ''their'' subjective lies.

[andreasva]

A duration of existence can speed up or slow down, it depends how close you are to a star or gravitational body.

If we're looking at things objectively, this statement is subjective.  We do not have any physical evidence as to the duration of existence within gravity wells.  Clocks rates change, that's true.  We aren't clocks.  Beyond that, it's anyone's best guess at this point.  Objectively, the answer is unknown in physics.  I will add, if you get too close to the stars gravitational field, any answer becomes somewhat pointless.  Your clock stops abruptly, just like your snowman.   

[guest39538]

A duration of existence can speed up or slow down, it depends how close you are to a star or gravitational body.

If we're looking at things objectively, this statement is subjective.  We do not have any physical evidence as to the duration of existence within gravity wells.  Clocks rates change, that's true.  We aren't clocks.  Beyond that, it's anyone's best guess at this point.  Objectively, the answer is unknown in physics.  I will add, if you get too close to the stars gravitational field, any answer becomes somewhat pointless.  Your clock stops abruptly, just like your snowman.   

More to do with entropy than gravity and also burning up in the stars example.  Us for example could not exist if we were close to the sun, we would have never been born.  If you were to travel to the sun the field is so dense when you get near, you will time dilate your entire life in a few short minutes and no longer exist.


Δt = var (x)   time can change in many ways .


All things are clocks.


added - I should of put star or body, was just trying to distinguish between a star and a earth

[andreasva]

I will add, if you get too close to the stars gravitational field, any answer becomes somewhat pointless.  Your clock stops abruptly, just like your snowman.

That was a joke.  Yes, you'd be a crispy critter.

If you were to travel to the sun the field is so dense when you get near, you will time dilate your entire life in a few short minutes and no longer exist.

I do not agree nor disagree with the statement.  We have no physical evidence to claim this is fact, or science fiction.  Objectively, it's still in the hypothesis or theoretical stages.  It has not been confirmed that gravity would have any impact on our longevity or age.  The frequency in Cesium atoms changes.  That's confirmed.  Does frequency in matter correlate to physical aging?  Will be interesting to see when we have the technological ability to find out.  I suspect it will personally, but speaking objectively, the answer is unknown.     

[guest39538]

It has not been confirmed that gravity would have any impact on our longevity or age. 

I am not talking about gravity, I am talking about the electrostatic field density or electromagnetic radiation field density if it is less complex to understand.  The transverse of the inverse square law having more density .

[guest39538]

less.jpg (46.26 kB . 740x464 - viewed 2887 times)

[andreasva]

If you were to travel to the sun the field is so dense when you get near, you will time dilate your entire life in a few short minutes and no longer exist.

Isn't that the other way around?  The observers hanging back in the ship, while you took the shuttle pod into the stars gravity well, those observes would be the ones doing the aging at a high rate of speed.  Your clock slows at the bottom of the well relative to those hanging back in the ship.   

It gets so dang confusing, I can't keep it straight sometimes...

[andreasva]

I am not talking about gravity, I am talking about the electrostatic field density or electromagnetic radiation field density if it is less complex to understand.  The transverse of the inverse square law having more density .

I just ducked...  close call...   damn near took my head off with that one...  So, how them Bears doing this year?

[guest39538]

If you were to travel to the sun the field is so dense when you get near, you will time dilate your entire life in a few short minutes and no longer exist.

Isn't that the other way around?  The observers hanging back in the ship, while you took the shuttle pod into the stars gravity well, those observes would be the ones doing the aging at a high rate of speed.  Your clock slows at the bottom of the well relative to those hanging back in the ship.   

It gets so dang confusing, I can't keep it straight sometimes...

Lol it is not confusing,   Imagine you are twin two and you start on the bottom circle in the diagram, your frequency of time is a frequency based on the density of the field you are in and thermodynamics etc.  Your entropy is synchronised to the  rest frame.   Now imagine you start to move away from the bottom circle, the field become less dense so time slows down, now as you approach the top circle, the field gets dense again so time speeds up trying to reach an equilibrium frequency to the position dynamics required of the body.

[guest39538]

I am not talking about gravity, I am talking about the electrostatic field density or electromagnetic radiation field density if it is less complex to understand.  The transverse of the inverse square law having more density .

I just ducked...  close call...   damn near took my head off with that one...  So, how them Bears doing this year?

What Bears lol?

I could relate that to several questions

[andreasva]

Now imagine you start to move away from the bottom circle, the field become less dense so time slows down, now as you approach the top circle, the field gets dense again so time speeds up trying to reach an equilibrium frequency to the position dynamics required of the body.

I get it.  We just don't know if matter frequency means bean dip to the aging process, or our mental perception of time.  Frequency changes, and that's all that's been confirmed.  We have to re-calibrate clocks in GPS satellites to compensate for SR.  A clock is not a person.     

[guest39538]

Now imagine you start to move away from the bottom circle, the field become less dense so time slows down, now as you approach the top circle, the field gets dense again so time speeds up trying to reach an equilibrium frequency to the position dynamics required of the body.

I get it.  We just don't know if matter frequency means bean dip to the aging process, or our mental perception of time.  Frequency changes, and that's all that's been confirmed.  We have to re-calibrate clocks in GPS satellites to compensate for SR.  A clock is not a person.     

Indeed I understand that , this is the very reason I had to objectively look at time to give it an exact strict definition that could not be ambiguous.   My definition accounts for all the possible variations of time,


Time :  A Quantifiable Recorded Measurement , Directly  Proportional to a Finite  Duration of Existence


Run the truth logic on that definition .   It is not what I think it is what time is.