It's Interesting what Carroll said about the question itself, of whether time is real or not [see in my previous post]
time though has no bearing on what is permissible or not to suggest that time has this ability to do so means that time has a " property " if time has a property define it because until times property is defined time is simply a measurement of movement and nothing more , which right now is where time stands time has no influence on any object , it is a consequence of movement and nothing more
Time as we know it, evolved from the BB along with space as we know it, before there was any movement to speak of. Whatever existed before t+ 10-43 seconds is unknown.....It may have been time and space, as we dont know them...who knows...But in TIME it maybe revealed.
Perhaps you missed the part which addresses space (and release of energy) as an a priori event. I also conclude that time is a result. Both are a result of a conditionally permissive timeless condition named Universal Potential which was Causal to the BB..and Space (change) and Time (duration)...spacetime. Universal potential is the single common denominator of all objects and events in this universe, by virtue that potential must exist before an event is allowed to happen..
Who ever said that time has a bearing on what is permisable? Time is a property of the Universe. Movement/motion etc, all occur in time.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Cosmologists and Astrophysicists a lot lot smarter then you or I, dont have the answer to that as yet. But here's a scientific paper on a speculative proposal: http://fisica.ciencias.uchile.cl/~gonzalo/cursos/termo_II-04/seminarios/EJP_Stenger-bigbang_90.pdf Or if that's too difficult for you to understand try here..... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mario-livio/is-our-universe-the-ultim_b_2123732.html
The thing is, the "free lunch" hypothesis, although still rather speculative, aligns fairly well with our current known laws..
Measurable "duration" of change or geometry, using standardized increments from nano-seconds to light-years.
The word Potential is so familiar to us that we tend to use it casually. But fundamental definition of potential is: "That which may become reality" Logically, whereas not all potential becomes reality, all reality was, is, and must be preceded by potential. The potential (implication/probability) for an event always precedes the event. IT is the common denominator of all Change. A timeless abstract mathematical constant. We use this word in so many real life applications that we pay no attention to it's implications. There are profound implications in the concept of potential in that context. It must have preceded the BB and the beginning of spacetime.
all based on objects movements without objects there is no duration and geometry think of duration , this is what got me started on defining time still the Universe , in the absolute sense , both duration and the geometry are frozen , now where does time reside ? nowhere
You make it sound as if I am opposing your point of view. Read deeper, I am agreeing with you, just from a different perspective, which IMO, is not in conflict with Paddoboy's position either..
Time is something you waste by replying in this thread. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, if you persist in debate after agreement, that would be a waste of my time for that "duration". And if during my exchange with you I want to communicate to Paddoboy that I am also in agreement with him, I believe I am free to do so according to the rules. And finally, if my posts are not clear to you, it may be that you do not pay sufficient attention to the content of what I say and your responses are a knee-jerk reaction to an unfamiliar viewpoint..
No I don't I'm afraid. This is related to electron models and TQFT, where the electron is said to be a double-looped Dirac's belt vorticial "knot" of field. It isn't mainstream. However the general idea goes back as far as Thomson and Tait. Peter Guthrie Tait was the guy who first came up with knot tables, see for example this. The particle "zoo" is said to comprise a whole bunch of different knots, but most are unstable. There's definitely a reason. IMHO it corresponds to a wavelength that's a 2π multiple of the common amplitude associated with Planck's constant. Which is something like the guitar-string pluck always being the same amplitude. Again look at pictures of the electromagnetic spectrum and note that the wave height is always the same.
I've just received a reply from Prof. Julian Barbour. He's been following this thread and some minds at work ;-)
