I challenge the world , bring it on!

[james blunt]

x,y,and z are variables also. So there is nothing special about t in that regard.

Entropy is not the same as time. It can help in pointing a *direction* to time, breaking a symmetry in the laws, but it isn't time.

x= ∞

y= ∞

z= ∞


x1 is a variable sir not x y or z

 

[Polymath257]

Try this, observe our entire observable Universe from the third person view , looking from outside.

Now what happens when you travel backwards still observing the universe?

It starts to visually contract right? To a point of no visual existence.

You are assuming time makes sense outside of the universe. Spacetime *is* the universe--throughout both space and time. It is a single, coherent, 4 dimensional object.

 

[JoshuaTree]

Looks like I have much to study/ponder based upon the explanations provided, thanks everyone!

 

[dfnj]

And that is why I continue, actually. The ideas are ones that are commonly misunderstood. Having even a bad stimulus can lead to interesting conversations.

Here's the big difference. You made a point a few pages back that I did not understand something correctly. I didn't get mad. I actually gave you a thumbs up after I did some reading. I'm not married to my opinions. And I don't think my opinions are God's given truth.

 

[james blunt]

You are assuming time makes sense outside of the universe. Spacetime *is* the universe--throughout both space and time. It is a single, coherent, 4 dimensional object.

No, you are quoting what it says it is and not what it is , that is not correct sir. Space has no dimensions sir, dimensions are the substance that ''fills'' nothingness. Space-time is a relativistic time and coordinate system that overlays an absolute-space time with unknown dimensions , logically ∞ proportionally and isotropic.

 

[james blunt]

I drew it you : Welcome to reality

 

[james blunt]

Both observers experience the longer measurement, science is useless at some things, have faith in me, I describe God.

 

[james blunt]

The truth cut thy tongues?

 

[Polymath257]

Here's the big difference. You made a point a few pages back that I did not understand something correctly. I didn't get mad. I actually gave you a thumbs up after I did some reading. I'm not married to my opinions. And I don't think my opinions are God's given truth.

And that is certainly a quite reasonable difference. But I am not giving explanations solely for the benefit of those who think they know the truth via divine revelation. I try to make my posts informative for a more general audience.

 

[Polymath257]

Looks like I have much to study/ponder based upon the explanations provided, thanks everyone!

Feel free to ask any questions you might have!

 

[james blunt]

And that is certainly a quite reasonable difference. But I am not giving explanations solely for the benefit of those who think they know the truth via divine revelation. I try to make my posts informative for a more general audience.

Are you informing them of the truths though? Or are you informing them from your memory of what you were taught was the truth? If the truth you learnt was for some reason not correct, would you be not teaching false teachings?

Shouldn't the cards be placed on the table, then let the person looking at the cards determine their own truth of the cards?

Why object to other cards?

If one card is different but shows the other card is not the truth, do you not think the untrue card should be put in the bin, then the new card presented?

 

[Polymath257]

Are you informing them of the truths though? Or are you informing them from your memory of what you were taught was the truth? If the truth you learnt was for some reason not correct, would you be not teaching false teachings?

Shouldn't the cards be placed on the table, then let the person looking at the cards determine their own truth of the cards?

Why object to other cards?

If one card is different but shows the other card is not the truth, do you not think the untrue card should be put in the bin, then the new card presented?

But if the cards show that one person isn't playing with a full deck, I can still play with my own deck.

 

[james blunt]

But if the cards show that one person isn't playing with a full deck, I can still play with my own deck.

But I am quite clearly playing with two decks, your deck and my own deck. So quite clearly I have the advantage of knowing the ''frivolous litigation '' of your deck. My ''prosecution '' is an open and shut case, science has no ''defence'' when my deck of cards objectively ''destroys'' their cards, they have nothing to play as demonstrated in this very thread.

None of you can break my ideas, presenting what it says presently , that I am correcting , is not a defence, it just provides more targets to destroy each and every time.

It is not me whom has to break science ideology anymore, it is up to science to break my over ruling ideas.

 

[Polymath257]

But I am quite clearly playing with two decks, your deck and my own deck. So quite clearly I have the advantage of knowing the ''frivolous litigation '' of your deck. My ''prosecution '' is an open and shut case, science has no ''defence'' when my deck of cards objectively ''destroys'' their cards, they have nothing to play as demonstrated in this very thread.

None of you can break my ideas, presenting what it says presently , that I am correcting , is not a defence, it just provides more targets to destroy each and every time.

It is not me whom has to break science ideology anymore, it is up to science to break my over ruling ideas.

Sorry, but your ideas in science are justifiably ignored. They are based on outdated ideas that are known to be incorrect. it is only in your own mind that they have any bearing on actual science.

 

[atanu]

They are the frame in which the background radiation has no dipole moment.That picks out one frame at each point. In that sense, and only that sense, it is absolute. But, objects moving with respect to that frame have a different notion of which points in spacetime are 'now'.

How exactly is that different from what Sustainer is saying, if we disregard the differences in naming of terms?

 

[james blunt]

Sorry, but your ideas in science are justifiably ignored. They are based on outdated ideas that are known to be incorrect. it is only in your own mind that they have any bearing on actual science.

My ideas are all based on present science but I explain it better and more accurate than science. In simple terms the last ten years or so I spent learning science, I understood science better than science. I do not understand things I might not have learnt yet, but I certainly understand every great scientist from our past and what they taught me. Science is not what is written down on paper, science is thinking and thinking is science.
Now you say my ideas are justifiably ignored yet that is all they keep saying, they never break my actual idea. So that means nothing but you own and their own stubbornness to accept the truths.


Science claims it is all for proof , ask science for proofs and they can't give you them. I can prove space can't be created or destroyed, science can't prove the opposite. They are quite clearly making stuff up.

 

[james blunt]

How exactly is that different from what Sustainer is saying, if we disregard the differences in naming of terms?

Its an objective control thing , only ''them'' can ever be correct. This is what controls you all , they have control when control is not needed . Society needs Governments etc, or everything would be anarchy.

 

[dfnj]

And that is certainly a quite reasonable difference. But I am not giving explanations solely for the benefit of those who think they know the truth via divine revelation. I try to make my posts informative for a more general audience.

I see any ego in your posts either. I think you are genuinely trying to convey information you know with no other purpose than to educate what you've experienced as best view we have on the subject. When you talk about nature you have to some humility. Nature always turn out to be so much stranger than anything we can imagine. Yet, I am a firm believer in the power of the standards of physics because they've been through so much scrutiny and debate by people who are most likely much smarter than I am.

 

[dfnj]

Sorry, but your ideas in science are justifiably ignored. They are based on outdated ideas that are known to be incorrect. it is only in your own mind that they have any bearing on actual science.

I may not be able to put it into words as well as you. But what I was reading did not seem like what I've have seen written by more established and respected scientists.

 

[dfnj]

No, you are quoting what it says it is and not what it is , that is not correct sir. Space has no dimensions sir, dimensions are the substance that ''fills'' nothingness. Space-time is a relativistic time and coordinate system that overlays an absolute-space time with unknown dimensions , logically ∞ proportionally and isotropic.

Let me ask you something about your idea of absolute-space time. Imagine starting from Earth, pick any direction, and travel a trillion light years away. At some point after 14 billion light years you will enter "empty" space in your imagination. At a trillion light years away there is no mass and no energy present. As far as we know it is empty space. In the space of nothingness, how do you know time exists?

I would argue without the presence of mass and energy time does not exist. I would even go further in terms of subjective philosophy and argue unless you have a self-aware conscious observer identifying when time begins and end then time does not exist. What is your evidence absolute-space time exists? What is time?