Starship Asterisk*

aristarchusinexile wrote:A discussion with Chris on finding the centre of the universe caused me to consider that 'Now' multiplied by Infinity = Eternal Now.

That appears to be a meaningless observation, both mathematically (nothing can be multiplied by "infinity") and physically.

Is there a math symbol for 'Now' used in math like or unlike Calculus? Is this worthy of consideration in discussions of time and distance?

There is no such symbol, because the concept of "now" isn't useful. Time is almost always treated as a value that defines an interval. An expression may be evaluated from t(0) to t(1). Or a single value, like t(n) might be used. The point is, "now" is just another time, with no particular significance. If you were describing something with respect to "now", it would be most common to simply set t=0.

makc wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:'Now' multiplied by Infinity = Eternal Now.

what fine example of scientific logic.

Yes .. appearing too simple to even mention perhaps .. but if 'now' is finite moment, which it is said by some thinkers to be, envisioned as digital existance by some people, then the equation becomes necessary, and perhaps applicable to cosmology. In contemplating this stuff, I become convinced that time is actually physically broken eternity, shards, or spin of particles, each spin a measure of time, or each partial spin a measure, and when the universe explodes and particles convert to spirit, spin stops, time stops, true eternity begins. This matches the statements of my spiritual reading, the title of which I am advised not to mention too often, but which most of you on the forum are aware of. If time can be based on spin of particles, then each particle may exist in its own time, which could be cause for disintegration, the time of one particle competing with the time of the other particle. This could have applications in inhibiting disintigration, as seems to be the case with electrical currents inhibiting formation of rust, electrical current perhaps harmonizing spin .. leading to (but failing of course) attempts at 'eternal life' through plasma bath, etc.

astrolabe wrote:o or maybe 0t or maybe +t- or maybe >t< or <t> or t(0) or t/0 or /

Excellent Astro - I like you >t<

aristarchusinexile wrote:

makc wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:'Now' multiplied by Infinity = Eternal Now.

what fine example of scientific logic.

Yes .. appearing too simple to even mention perhaps .. but if 'now' is finite moment, which it is said by some thinkers to be, envisioned as digital existance by some people, then the equation becomes necessary, and perhaps applicable to cosmology. In contemplating this stuff, I become convinced that time is actually physically broken eternity, shards, or spin of particles, each spin a measure of time, or each partial spin a measure, and when the universe explodes and particles convert to spirit, spin stops, time stops, true eternity begins. This matches the statements of my spiritual reading, the title of which I am advised not to mention too often, but which most of you on the forum are aware of. If time can be based on spin of particles, then each particle may exist in its own time, which could be cause for disintegration, the time of one particle competing with the time of the other particle. This could have applications in inhibiting disintigration, as seems to be the case with electrical currents inhibiting formation of rust, electrical current perhaps harmonizing spin .. leading to (but failing of course) attempts at 'eternal life' through plasma bath, etc.

is there a doctor in the house?

makc wrote:is there a doctor in the house?

http://www.sju.edu/honor-society/sigma- ... n/Lucy.jpg

Chris Peterson wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:A discussion with Chris on finding the centre of the universe caused me to consider that 'Now' multiplied by Infinity = Eternal Now.

That appears to be a meaningless observation, both mathematically (nothing can be multiplied by "infinity") and physically.

Is there a math symbol for 'Now' used in math like or unlike Calculus? Is this worthy of consideration in discussions of time and distance?

There is no such symbol, because the concept of "now" isn't useful. Time is almost always treated as a value that defines an interval. An expression may be evaluated from t(0) to t(1). Or a single value, like t(n) might be used. The point is, "now" is just another time, with no particular significance. If you were describing something with respect to "now", it would be most common to simply set t=0.

A physically real 'now' might help explain non-locality, as would a particular event in a particular place multiplied by infinity and able to appear anywhere .. again, such as in non-locality. Your t=0 strikes me as no time, so no 'now'. I prefer Astro's >t<
It seems to be that since scientists once believed heavier than air flight and moon landings impossible, that if we could get that kind of barrier to thought removed from non-locality, we might find explanations for it, and applications for it .. like instantaneous travel to a place billions of light years distant, even if that travel meant the 'clone' of the traveller doing the travelling, but the original traveller, seated in aparatus, seeing and hearing as if he was the clone. Of course, this must have been explored in Science Fiction, which I stopped reading three decades ago, but I see the possibility of success as real as those examples mentioned: heavier than air flight and moon landings, which were also the subject of Science Fiction. As far as multiplying with infinity goes, who could have imagined Calculus before it was discovered (or formulated) .. not that I know Calculus, merely knowing of it, with this lack of knowledge, like Faraday's, compelling me to discover other paths of exploration and description.

harry wrote:G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Down under we do not worry about posture.

No, that did not sound right.

Funny Ha Ha I laughed.

My understanding of the word universe, according to definitions, is all the physcical matter that exists anywhere .. so, as I believe groups of galaxies are generally increasing in their distance from each other, except those groups drawing closer to each o5her, that the universe is expanding. However, this means if the universe is not expanding, that compression may be going on at the farthest 'edges'. Such compression could be the trigger for the ultimate explosion of the universe, of which my reading says that explosion will happen.

harry wrote:G'day Aris

Is ther more?

There is always more.

Plasma properties.

Double layer

Look it up.

And see the link on The origins of jet formation.

Look at the mechanisms involved in jet formation.

I think I posted this before

Mechanism for astrophysical jets arXiv
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+je ... /0/all/0/1

\

Just a little reading, eh? I made a note of it in my hotmail account, for winter reading, although, it would be nice to look at it from my canoe.

JimJast wrote:ari, I see that makc answered your question several minutes before I managed to post mine, so now you have two answers.

Yes, and Makc and I are in pleasant and private discussion about it also .. and I have some enlightenment, but disagree with you Jim that what is not observed does not belong in Physics, as Dark Matter and Dark Energy are not seen, yet must be considered (either neutrally, positively or negatively).

My sticking point in the Wiki quote is "Action at a distance is incompatible with relativity."
I hope to reconcile this with the rest of the article, as it seems a contradiction with the rest of the article.

aristarchusinexile wrote:Your t=0 strikes me as no time, so no 'now'.

Not at all. Since time specifies intervals (an isolated point of time is meaningless), and since time flows at a constant rate (the interval between t=0 and t=1 is exactly the same as the interval between t=5 and t=6), the choice of reference value is arbitrary. It is usually most convenient (the calculations are simplified) if the reference value is zero. So if you are performing some calculations with respect to "now", you would probably want to set "now" equivalent to t=0, with signed time values on either side of that. Of course, you could use any value you wanted and it would have no impact on the result of the calculations.

Chris Peterson wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:Your t=0 strikes me as no time, so no 'now'.

Not at all. Since time specifies intervals (an isolated point of time is meaningless), and since time flows at a constant rate (the interval between t=0 and t=1 is exactly the same as the interval between t=5 and t=6), the choice of reference value is arbitrary. It is usually most convenient (the calculations are simplified) if the reference value is zero. So if you are performing some calculations with respect to "now", you would probably want to set "now" equivalent to t=0, with signed time values on either side of that. Of course, you could use any value you wanted and it would have no impact on the result of the calculations.

I truly appreciate your comments; but I disagree that an isolated point of time is meaningless .. if it were, non-locality, it seems to me, would be impossible, as the effects occur at the same time. I also disagree that time flows at a constant rate. If Chronons are real, for instance, they could clump, meaning time would run faster in clumps, and slower in individual Chronons .. or, perhaps, reversed, clumps might impede the flow of time. I hope the last comment reveals that I don't think I know it all, but rather enjoy exploration.

harry wrote:G'day from the land of ozzzz

I would go on a trail ride with anybody, even Lillith.

This link maybe of interest

Problems of practical cosmology.
http://ppc08.astro.spbu.ru/text_proc.html

Would have been nice to have been there. St. Petersburg .. the new top travel destination for Europe, as I am led to believe. My friend Alex who helped design interiors for the Russian space capsules said he practically lived at the Hermitage for three years. Novasibrsk must be quite an experience to visit .. kind of like the Perimetre Institute in Waterloo, but an entire city.

aristarchusinexile wrote:I disagree that an isolated point of time is meaningless .. if it were, non-locality, it seems to me, would be impossible, as the effects occur at the same time.

taking the risk of driving you even more crazy, I would like to point out that relativity makes "now" defined differently for different observers, e.g. things that happen at the same time for you, happen one after another for everybody else, and half of observes sees them happening in other order than another half (btw, exactly because you see them happening at the same time; otherwise, these events could be strictly ordered... because, you know, relativity cannot undermine causality).

aristarchusinexile wrote:I also disagree that time flows at a constant rate. If Chronons are real, for instance, they could clump, meaning time would run faster in clumps, and slower in individual Chronons .. or, perhaps, reversed, clumps might impede the flow of time. I hope the last comment reveals that I don't think I know it all, but rather enjoy exploration.

apart from basing your disagreement on "if" assumption, how on earth would you notice that your time rate has changed? there is a clock to measure time, but there is no device to measure time speed or acceleration (in other way than by comparing 2+ different clocks).

Remember the clock and the round about. The clock on the inside ticks slower. Gravity does affect time, as they are entangled in the frame work the main guy set out. Question should be, does a black hole affect time on the outside? just like the BB singularity did? I would like to know the difference in time from Event Horizon to the depths of a black hole. Could Time in the center of a black hole be at a stand still, .5 of a second after the Big Bang? If we can look back, in time, that far via photons why can this not be true also? These are my views, what you have just read. just for the purpose of understanding the unimaginable ..

Mark

JimJast wrote:So I'm asking for help in finding any document that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Einstein or Feynaman believed that the universe is expanding, or equivalently, that energy cen be created.

Einstein's development of GR is what showed the Universe expanding (there is no issue of energy being created, so no concern there). Einstein, like many other early 20th century physicists, found the idea of an expanding universe philosophically distasteful. So he invented a fudge factor, the cosmological constant, specifically to force his theory to allow for a static universe. A few years later, he was convinced by the work of Hubble that the Universe is indeed expanding, which is when he removed the cosmological constant and famously referred to it as "his greatest blunder". I would think that tracking down the exact details of that quote would answer your question with respect to Einstein.

I have no idea what Feynman believed deep inside, but I know from first hand experience- being in his classroom and in seminars- that he was very comfortable talking about relativity and expanding space. I remember one talk where he was drawing world lines in an expanding space. I never heard anything at all to make me think he didn't completely accept that the Universe is expanding.

I doubt that either man believed in energy being created. Your suggestion that an expanding universe somehow requires that doesn't seem to be shared by other physicists.

Chris Peterson wrote:
I doubt that either man believed in energy being created. Your suggestion that an expanding universe somehow requires that doesn't seem to be shared by other physicists.

I doubt that energy not being created is not a possibility .. notice that I included doubt in that doubt.

mark swain wrote:The clock on the inside ticks slower

...than some other second clock, which really means other observer's clock. I was asking about one device used by one observer.

makc wrote: the risk of driving you even more crazy

As you are aware, I ride slowly on substantial wheels and tires, so the risk of being driven crazy is more easily avoided than if flying on rollerblades, for instance, although, all things being relative, my riding is flying compared to canoeing, so the risk is relative, especially when contemplating some of my relatives, and they contemplating me .. and the walls which seem to insulate minds from thought.

makc wrote: I would like to point out that relativity makes "now" defined differently for different observers ...

But, isn't that what relativity is missing? Just because different observers observe at their now does not negate the now of the occurence .. that now, multiplied by infinity, giving (not eternal now but rather after having pondered things more fully) infinite now, which non-locality taps into, infinite being a measure of space rather than time, and affording, I repeat, the luxury of non-locality.

aristarchusinexile wrote: I also disagree that time flows at a constant rate. If Chronons are real, for instance, they could clump, meaning time would run faster in clumps, and slower in individual Chronons .. or, perhaps, reversed, clumps might impede the flow of time. I hope the last comment reveals that I don't think I know it all, but rather enjoy exploration.

makc wrote:apart from basing your disagreement on "if" assumption, how on earth would you notice that your time rate has changed? there is a clock to measure time, but there is no device to measure time speed or acceleration (in other way than by comparing 2+ different clocks).

Big Bang is based on the IF assumption of the cosmic egg or singularity, yet BB enjoys tremendous support from some of those people on this forum. I am not concerned in the least about measuring my personal time rate, only in interesting investors in the opportunity of showering me with millions of dollars with which I can develop my non-loco-powered apparatus with which we can tap into non-locality and with which to travel virtually to distant places in the universe. This is a sure investment, with guaranteed returns, please send big barrels of cash to: Mxylplyxl Development Company, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada. (And they said I was crazy!)

makc wrote:

mark swain wrote:The clock on the inside ticks slower

...than some other second clock, which really means other observer's clock. I was asking about one device used by one observer.

But we both know ,, There is a clock on the inside. Two clocks running at different speed has been proven. The fact we can not see, the inside clock Tells a story. If i was able to travel around our planet at close to the speed of light. At what point do i exist in the future? and you can no longer see me? same for the black hole.. it can,t see us.. and we can not see it...

Mark

neufer wrote:

makc wrote:is there a doctor in the house?

http://www.sju.edu/honor-society/sigma- ... n/Lucy.jpg

Darn you, Charlie Brown, stealing Lucy away from me! http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/

Tip of the iceberg that... it gets real bad Lucy...

Mark

aristarchusinexile wrote:... isn't that what relativity is missing? Just because different observers observe at their now does not negate the now of the occurence ...

Now only has meaning with respect to the observer, not the event.

aristarchusinexile wrote:... Big Bang is based on the IF assumption of the cosmic egg or singularity ...

BBT does not require a singularity. That there was a singularity is only an assumption (and not a universal one even in BBT) that arises from the observance of an expanding universe. Very little can be known about the universe prior to CMB. Any ideas about the very early universe are speculative and belong to the realm of cosmonogy not cosmology.

BBT created all in one instant.... The hole lot. The end was also created. And we can go to any point of it. Time is a physical thing, like space. I completely understand it.

Mark

mark swain wrote:BBT created all in one instant.... The hole lot. The end was also created. And we can go to any point of it. Time is a physical thing, like space. I completely understand it.

I'm glad you do. Could someone please explain it to me?

I don't believe we can traverse time. The past is forever gone, the future yet to be. We are eternally trapped in the NOW.