Ahhh! you remembered! Good. Wanna see something that I, personally, think is neat?
Shure.
Introductory information.
- One could argue that the connection between my “Double Triplet Scenario” & Loedel Diagrams and “The Problem of The Now” is not clear. The Scenario and Diagram may even 'seem ‘off-topic’. But, although the connection may not seem clear, IMO, there is a connection: it just takes a lot of wading through the swamp to get to.
- This is a link to a document composed by Joel Gwinn that covers the basics of Loedel Spacetime diagram construction. Loedel Spacetime by Joel Gwinn
- On page 8 a diagram of the two axes of a Loedel diagram.
Or should I have just said: two worldlines, labeled “ct” and "ct’ ", and two “lines of simultaneity”, labeled “X” and "X’ "? Note that ct and X are at a 90 degree angle relative to each other, and "ct’*** and X’ are also at a 90 degree angle relative to each other.
The diagram on page 8 of Joel Gwinn’s document represents two objects in relative motion with respect to each other at Beta = v/c". In other words, the diagram on page 8 summarizes “The Twin Paradox” of Einstein’s theory of special relativity, assuming, in this case, that the relative velocity between the Twins is 0.8660 c. The 90 degree angle between ct and ct’ and between X and X’ is the sin Alpha = Beta.
A little reflection on the diagram on page 8 tells me that if the Twins were, hypothetically, at rest with respect to each other, angle between ct* and ct’ and between X and X’ would be 0 degrees.
Consequently, I can imagine a scenario in which the Twins are initially at rest with respect to (wrt) to each other, then undergo relative motion wrt each other up to v/c = 0.8660 c in opposite directions in a circle, and eventually reunite in "same place, more or less.
Why isn’t your idea of unitized spacetime inconsistent with Minkowski’s x² + y² + z² - c²t²?
Are you asking me why “my” Absolute Space is inconsistent with Relativity’s Relative Spacetime?
Yes (and also about “unitized” space and time). And if there is such a thing as absolute space, how is that not contrary to big bang cosmology? (Likewise “absolute time.”) And doesn’t it preclude the possibility of multiverses (not that I mind)?
(Chuckling to myself) … I correctly guessed what you were asking.
To be honest, my now-and-prematurely deceased mentor repudiated the “Big Bang”. I think I know why: I think it’s because, as currently theorized, there is no “BEFORE” the Big Bang, nada, zip, zilch, nihil. And the abstract nouns, Absolute Space and Absolute Time, pave the way for an infinite, eternal cosmos: a boundless stage on which and in which Democritus’ “uncuttables” (a.k.a. atoms) move, have always moved, and will continue to move forever.
You want multiple universes? Knock yourself out. In an unbounded and eternal cosmos, you can have as many universes as you want, and as many galaxies, and solar systems, and “worlds” as you want, too. A cosmos in which marvels and wonders are myriad.
In such a cosmos, I, personally and without the blessing of anyone I know, am sufficiently ignorant of the skills required to explain “how” but I’d be willing to consider the possibility of “big bang” singularities expanding in a lot of “places” in Absolute Space.
1 Like
I don’t particularly.
I don’t particularly want to do any more, having had to clean off my shoes already.
If your “mentor” (not a godly man), if his motivation was to allow him to ‘find’ time before the beginning of the universe, he is welcome to it – it doesn’t motivate me. I have no problem with accepting a true beginning, and an eternal cosmos would exist independently of God (I’m sure he would have concurred), and that suits others I am familiar with just fine too.
Not a problem. Actually, I’m surprised that you’ve held up as long as you have, although I’m slightly, very slightly, disappointed that you’re calling it quits before I got to the big question I was going to ask after a hypothetical scenario in which two sets of triplets start out near and at rest wrt each other, zoom off in opposite directions in a circle, and reunite in the same place.
Which of the two sets of triplets has the shortest worldline?
Dunno, don’t care?
I do care about the implication of an “eternal cosmos” existing apart from God. It wasn’t made.
Through him all things were made, and without him nothing was made that has been made.
John 1:3
By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
Hebrews 11:3
But not an infinite number of universes or particles.
Perhaps I should have said: “as many as God wants”, in which: who am I to tell Him to stop?
In the same way God will not create a married bachelor so he will not create an infinite number of things.
So you believe that “the impossible” and “the unimaginable” are synonyms? Well, okay, … but I think you ought to take that up with God, because that’s above my pay-grade.
1 Like
Would you say that if both are logical contradictions?
I wouldn’t say it if I thought both were logical contradictions. But I don’t.
Personally? I think a human abiogenetic conception is impossible and unimaginable.
1 Like
Obviously infinity is not a natural or real number, but it may still be have a value that represents a limitless potential. There are two infinite values that I know of. But I don’t buy the whole let’s keep repeating the function, and then say there are an infinite potential of infinite values.
Irregardless, the number of universes or particles may proceed to infinity, but it would be a contradiction to say there are a definite number of actual universes or particles existing at this moment that are also infinite in quantity.
1 Like