What if time doesn't flow in one direction?

Atlan0001 said:
Self-similarity(!):

The fastest (+) of all speeds in the universe is the speed of light in a vacuum!

Self-similarly(!):

he slowest (-) of all speeds in the universe is the speed of light in a vacuum!
Click to expand...
planets and suns orbit at lower speeds than the speed of light.
 
Atlan0001 said:
The fastest (+) of all speeds in the universe is the speed of light in a vacuum!

Self-similarly(!):

he slowest (-) of all speeds in the universe is the speed of light in a vacuum!
Click to expand...
Google Ai

the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light in some regions, but this doesn't violate Einstein's theory of relativity. The expansion of the universe refers to the stretching of spacetime itself, and this expansion isn't limited by the speed of light, which applies to objects moving through space
 
RainbowSingularity said:
planets and suns orbit at lower speeds than the speed of light.
Click to expand...
Planets and suns orbit at speeds far, far, faster than the slow end, the floor speed, of the speed of light ((-)300,000kps) in a vacuum. You, sitting or standing still near a stop sign on Earth, or next to Einstein's railroad track on Earth (or on that train), or on the ISS in orbit, or on a Limitless Space Institute ship traveling on the way to Proxima Centauri for a trip possibly taking only months rather than years per LSI and NASA, no matter where, are moving far, far, faster than the slow end, the floor speed, of the speed of light in a vacuum ((-)300,000kps). It is a fractal two speed self-similarity of speed, the speed of light in a vacuum, ceiling and floor . . . finitely closed systemic (ceiling speed) and infinitely open systemic (floor speed); Planck Horizon of the universe(s) 'c=1' ('Unity'). Alternative Realities . . . QM, quantum physics, telling us that there is always more than just one state to reality: More than one, such as fundamental binary base2 '0' and/or '1' (not forgetting the Trojan, "parity").

Parity (physics) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
Atlan0001 said:
Planets and suns orbit at speeds far, far, faster than the slow end, the floor speed, of the speed of light ((-)300,000kps) in a vacuum. You, sitting or standing still near a stop sign on Earth, or next to Einstein's railroad track on Earth (or on that train), or on the ISS in orbit, or on a Limitless Space Institute ship traveling on the way to Proxima Centauri for a trip possibly taking only months rather than years per LSI and NASA, no matter where, are moving far, far, faster than the slow end, the floor speed, of the speed of light in a vacuum ((-)300,000kps). It is a fractal two speed self-similarity of speed, the speed of light in a vacuum, ceiling and floor . . . finitely closed systemic (ceiling speed) and infinitely open systemic (floor speed); Planck Horizon of the universe(s) 'c=1' ('Unity'). Alternative Realities . . . QM, quantum physics, telling us that there is always more than just one state to reality: More than one, such as fundamental binary base2 '0' and/or '1' (not forgetting the Trojan, "parity").

Parity (physics) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

this is dealing with physics that is way past my comprehension
is there any link between time flow & a massless particle ?
can time travel faster or slower than the speed of light ?
 
RainbowSingularity said:
this is dealing with physics that is way past my comprehension
is there any link between time flow & a massless particle ?
can time travel faster or slower than the speed of light ?
Click to expand...
I made the mistake of A. Asking posters to go easy on him B. Reaching out to him several times.

Posters did what I asked to an extent because they are all nice humans on here.

He repaid that by trolling on every thread so now if he posts nonsense, goes off topic or other troll stuff I will report.
 
Moderator note: Atlan0001 has been warned (again) for posting inappropriately. As he would put it, he has chosen to continue to post "pure garbage stupidity of a very mediocre mind".

Due to accumulated warning points, he has now been permanently banned from sciforums.
 
Just to be clear...
Atlan0001 said:
Michio Kaku recently recorded a video on YouTube in which he indicated the possibility that, due to the light born resolutions the JWST is coming with from the most distant parts of the universe so far observed, the universe just might extend out to infinity and never have had a Big Bang.
Click to expand...
Notice that Atlan0001 did not link the video, if it exists.

It seems unlikely that, if it exists at all, Atlan0001 has accurately reported any opinions that Michio Kaku expressed in it.
Atlan0001 said:
I think in possibility of superposition existing in the universe...
Click to expand...
This does not parse.
Atlan0001 said:
... that the universe does extend to infinity in space and time and has a black hole-like event horizon, the infinity collapsed cosmological constant (/\) Planck Horizon...
Click to expand...
The "infinity collapsed cosmological constant (/\) Plank Horizon" is not actually a thing, as far as I'm aware. This reads like confected word salad.
Atlan0001 said:
... and, at once, it being the Big Bang Singularity, of the observable universe.
Click to expand...
Atlan0001's train of thought strays during his production of the sentence, such that he loses track of what he was talking about by the end. Result: gibberish.

Atlan0001 said:
The universe expands in accelerating expansion to infinity without ever really expanding to nowhere into nothingness.
Click to expand...
Logical contradiction makes the alleged behaviour impossible.
Atlan0001 said:
Extending out to infinity, spreading to infinity, with all distance it would expand in density and depth ...
Click to expand...
Supposedly, Atlan0001 is talking about the universe here. What would the "depth" of the universe be? Nonsense.
Atlan0001 said:
... -- piling on density and depth in superposition --
Click to expand...
Here, Atlan0001 injects the jargon term "superposition" into his sentence, in a way that has no meaning.

Atlan0001 said:
... of light with all distance acquiring in space and time...
Click to expand...
The word "acquiring" makes no sense at all in this sentence.

Atlan0001 said:
..., revealed in a deepening red shift of light increasing to the max with all distance toward infinity . . . or infinities plural), maybe.
Click to expand...
This doesn't parse. (None of this does.) The nonsense about "infinities plural), maybe" is just more random jargon injection.
Atlan0001 said:
Again in superposition outside in paralleling horizon above the causing infinity, also quite a cosmological constant of collapse condensing into heat energy, or dark energy, in the universe, that piling and flattening in dimension might be capable of.
Click to expand...
This is not even a sentence, let alone one that parses as a meaningful English communication.
Atlan0001 said:
If we ever get out into the universe we will find history, and histories, constantly repeating in large, though rarely in fine.
Click to expand...
This barely makes sense as English. At best, it's a completely unsupported claim that contains several dubious undefined terms.

Atlan0001 said:
Time doesn't flow in one direction, though the flow back doesn't operate how most people believer it would because it is a running repetition of physics, a running repetition of natural laws, thus a running reversal of time that way at all times.
Click to expand...
The conclusion doesn't follow at all from the premises here. Nor is there any attempt at all from Atlan0001 to justify his premises.
Atlan0001 said:
Any really good historian (history is a knowingly powerful science) who really knows his, or here, stuff, like historian Will Durant for just one, or physicist Stephen Hawking partially for another among many others, would tell you.
Click to expand...
I don't think either of them would tell anybody Atlan0001's word salad gibbering nonsense.
Atlan0001 said:
Time runs in offset parallels stretching backwards and forwards, and the offsets themselves are a superpositioning of time meaning also running backwards through time, all the way backwards.
Click to expand...
Meaningless blather.
 
Atlan0001 said:
Planets and suns orbit at speeds far, far, faster than the slow end, the floor speed, of the speed of light ((-)300,000kps) in a vacuum.
Click to expand...
Planets and suns do not orbit faster than the speed of light. A "floor speed" is not part of physics.
Atlan0001 said:
You, sitting or standing still near a stop sign on Earth, or next to Einstein's railroad track on Earth (or on that train), or on the ISS in orbit, or on a Limitless Space Institute ship traveling on the way to Proxima Centauri for a trip possibly taking only months rather than years per LSI and NASA, no matter where, are moving far, far, faster than the slow end, the floor speed, of the speed of light in a vacuum ((-)300,000kps).
Click to expand...
Equally wrong.
Atlan0001 said:
It is a fractal two speed self-similarity of speed...
Click to expand...
Another random injection of jargon. The result is a meaningless non-communication.

The consistency of this kind of thing in Atlan0001's posts is indicative either of deliberate obfuscatory trolling or else of some kind of mental health issue. It's really impossible to tell which.
Atlan0001 said:
, the speed of light in a vacuum, ceiling and floor . . . finitely closed systemic (ceiling speed) and infinitely open systemic (floor speed); Planck Horizon of the universe(s) 'c=1' ('Unity'). Alternative Realities . . . QM, quantum physics, telling us that there is always more than just one state to reality: More than one, such as fundamental binary base2 '0' and/or '1' (not forgetting the Trojan, "parity").
Click to expand...
By this stage, we're off in a psychedelic fantasy scape that only makes sense to one person, if it makes sense to anybody: the writer.
 
RainbowSingularity said:
this is dealing with physics that is way past my comprehension
Click to expand...
No. What Atlan0001 wrote is utter nonsense and drivel. Almost entirely meaningless. Just jargon strung together in a random order. See my analysis of just a little of it, above.
RainbowSingularity said:
is there any link between time flow & a massless particle ?
Click to expand...
What kind of link do you have in mind?
RainbowSingularity said:
can time travel faster or slower than the speed of light ?
Click to expand...
Time doesn't travel. Time is what clocks measure.

Speed refers to the distance something goes, divided by the time it takes to travel the distance. Hence, the speedometer in your car has units of miles per hour (or kilometres per hour, if you live in one of the worlds' more advanced nations).
 
James R said:
No. What Atlan0001 wrote is utter nonsense and drivel. Almost entirely meaningless. Just jargon strung together in a random order. See my analysis of just a little of it, above.
Click to expand...
Thanks James :)


James R said:
What kind of link do you have in mind?
Click to expand...
i was wondering about light and if there is some relation to how we measure time and this made me wonder about massless particles and if there are any others that might also behave in a similar manner & where we see gravitational lensing is time effected and is that time effected relative to how light is also effected.(its a cluster of a thought more soo than a precise question).


James R said:
Time doesn't travel. Time is what clocks measure.
Click to expand...
ok thanks. my head was thinking gravitational lensing and time flowing around it like light particles.
 
RS:
RainbowSingularity said:
i was wondering about light and if there is some relation to how we measure time and this made me wonder about massless particles and if there are any others that might also behave in a similar manner & where we see gravitational lensing is time effected and is that time effected relative to how light is also effected.(its a cluster of a thought more soo than a precise question).
Click to expand...
There are several questions in that sentence.

We can measure time in lots of different ways. We can measure it, for example, with a water clock, or a heart beat, or a grandfather clock. None of those involve light, other than in the process of observing or "reading off" a time interval.

You asked if there are massless particles other than photons. My answer to that is: I don't know. What I do know is that if there are other massless particles, they must travel at the speed of light.

You asked whether gravitational lensing affects time. Since gravitational lensing happens in curved spacetime, it would be reasonable to say that there are time-dilation effects that are relevant to gravitational lensing. But really there's nothing special about gravitational lensing, here. Light doesn't have to be involved. Time dilation between different observers always happens in regions of high spacetime curvature.
 
James R said:
RS:

There are several questions in that sentence.

We can measure time in lots of different ways. We can measure it, for example, with a water clock, or a heart beat, or a grandfather clock. None of those involve light, other than in the process of observing or "reading off" a time interval.

You asked if there are massless particles other than photons. My answer to that is: I don't know. What I do know is that if there are other massless particles, they must travel at the speed of light.

You asked whether gravitational lensing affects time. Since gravitational lensing happens in curved spacetime, it would be reasonable to say that there are time-dilation effects that are relevant to gravitational lensing. But really there's nothing special about gravitational lensing, here. Light doesn't have to be involved. Time dilation between different observers always happens in regions of high spacetime curvature.
Click to expand...
Thanks :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top