Causal quantum-gravitational model of space-time

There is no such thing as "time" that is a human invention.only "change" takes place, which is something we can not control.

 

Don't worry about esoteric theories - Your country will be going down the gurgler faster than a drunk can empty a glass of beer. - - - - Is this going to be another case of "Rome burned whilst Nero fiddled"?

 

Hmmm... Yesterday, I wiped the dust of my keyboard (Roland keyboard, not the PC keyboard), after a few hours down memory lane, I stood up, and noticed that the living room seemed tilted somewhat, started immedeately to think of this doomsday machine... But, today; still here!

Could of course also be the age/ eyes 40+......

 

Had Einstine believed in quantum physics he would still be alive today, and I can prove it with string theory.

K9

 

The String theorem is shown clearly here.... Very easy to understand too......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8uQG9V5keY

Will get most blokes to struggle a few seconds with factors of reality....

 

How long is a piece of string if it is passed into a spatial wormhole and comes out somewhere else in the time-space-continuum?

 

Bout the same length as spittle when you have had 17 Rum and cokes.

 

Does the length increase with consumption? I would be too drunk to notice?

 

Apparently starlings are not just flying around in a flock willy-nilly, but are going perfectly straight in all directions at once through a five dimension, non-dimensional structure of time held together with a glue that boatbuilders would find very useful. We are one of God's farts, before us the fart did not exist and in the future will become so diluted in "space" as to be non-existent, not even a memory. Soundless. Time will cease and boredom will reign.

I could be wrong.

 

Mas its like schrodingers cat. Yes we think the amount consumed makes a diffrence be we can either measure how drunk you are or where you fall down, but not both.

K9

 

hehehehe

 

The Shroedinger's cat example is more than a thought experiment. It is an accurate dynamic of perception. That is to say, it's exactly how we perceive the world, where our beliefs create what appear to be outcomes, but what are in fact circumstances providing evidence of our beliefs.
It isn't so much that the cat only becomes dead or alive when we ask which.
It is instead the circumstance of our asking--- our opportunity to ask to begin with--- that is subject to rules of perception.
The cat can be considered to have an awareness that knows if it is dead or alive. To the cat (which is like saying 'to the aware being'), a definite state exists.
Then, how could it be dead or alive?
A cat was apparantly chosen by Shroedinger to eliminate the question of sentience, since a human in a box, say Shroedinger's mother in law, would bring up the very problem I just mentioned, that a cat might not be just an object without awareness.
Then a paradox would have to occur (the same one that caused the many-worlds theories to be supposed). But never mind many-worlds theories. They are a waste of time, as valuable as fantasy in any case.
So how then could that "sentient cat in a box" not create an insurmountable paradox? If the cat is thinking, he knows darn well that he's alive if he is.
Therefore, something else must account for proof of life or death besides opening the box.
It's assumed, by the way, that the opportunity to open the box and see which? is absolutely granted.
It's assumed that IF (the word, "IF" is considered a given) the cat is found dead, then a certain statistical likelihood (of, say, 50%) will always be satisfied, so that if not next time or the time after, at least after 1000 tests have been done, about 500 tests will produce a living cat.
And here is the problem: It is impossible to theorize any other set of outcomes for this experiment or, for that matter, double slit tests, except outcomes that produce predictable statistical liklihoods.
This is the way the rule works. Literally, the tests always create theories which supposedly tell us that the balance of our perceived world is an extension of the tests we do. It never occurs to us that a very complete explanation of our world would be revealed once we realized that all of our mathematically perfect experiments are, by their very nature, the very CAUSE of, and not the representation, of something akin to a polar opposite of what experiments reveal.
This is saying, experiments do not describe the unseen, except that they effect the unseen in OPPOSITE (towards disorder)!
We already know this in any case. If we really understand the experiments of quantum physics, we realize that we are only privy to the material, or classical physical aspects of a particle/wave.
If we know the position, we cannot know the velocity. We still assume there IS a velocity because we refuse to accept there couldn't be one.
And the more positions we observe, the fewer velocities we can know (though I'm saying the fewer velocities exist at all).
In fact no matter what we observe, we are actually constructing our beliefs, nothing more. Further, those beliefs by their very preponderence necessitate the emergence of opposite REACTIVE circumstances.
On a phospher screen, photons leave marks to the left of center at first, for example, but guarantee a statistical pattern in the end once milliions of photons have "dropped to a lower state" revealing their locations. At any given moment, the experimenter could be asked if all the photons already showing on the screen had produced a greater or lesser likelyhood of what would come next, and he would have to say no, just as if he'd been asked after 100 flips of a quarter that produced 99 heads and one tail if the next roll was more likely to come up tails. He'd say no to that too.
He'd produce other tests to show how everything was normal, that each test begins somewhere on a bell shaped curve insofar as a tendancy to get more or fewer tails, for example in the first hundred flips.
He would base his beliefs, in other words, on longer term averages, using a bell-shaped curve to explain anomalies.
His knowledge of what was happening, however, would be sadly inaccurate because he never took his own personal experience into consideration.
He would, for example, be supposing (theorizing) that his experience applied to others. He'd assume that all of the data he received from others arrived with absolutely no consideration of his personal expectations. He would be wrong, but how could he know otherwise?
The answer is right in front of him, as it is for the rest of us. The question (of which side of a quarter or which slit of a double slit test) is not a theoretical reality but a real reality. The question doesn't get asked, for example, if we get run over by a truck on the way to the lab, or if we had never decided to study quantum physics one day years ago.
We take those circumstances to be beside the point EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW THEY EFFECT THE ONLY ANSWERS WE'LL EVER KNOW.
If we never hear about Shroedinger's cat, then how can we know for sure what an experiment would have revealed to us personally?
No, it is circumstance that allows the cat to be alive inside a supposed quantum box. Not half-alive but whatever he's gonna be when the lid is raised.
It's the arrangement of circumstances that is so amazing. We take them to be random or statistical, but the more we try to nail them down scientifically, the more they appear on other levels to be simply reacting to us personally.
Theoretically, were we to accept only statistical outcomes, we would become so strict about what must happen that there would be little room left for originality, and we'd be doomed eventually to becoming walking time bombs, stuck in our routines and attitudes while our own karma did its own thing in spite of us, and we would be like simple cells in a very big body, waiting for the axe to fall, or maybe deliverance, but not even knowing it.

Alan

 

Another explanation of the arrow of time:

"Now let's look at spacetime from a reference frame in which Δt and Δx are undefined and could be nonzero. Take Δt first. The universe as a whole needs to be atemporal, because there is a reference frame in which there is no time. The only way that Δt can be nonzero while overall there is no time is for the universe to take a step backward in time for every step forward. It doesn't matter which way it goes first; we can even assume that it takes the forward and backward steps simultaneously. Thus, universal time is always zero.
Each time the universe takes a step, either forward or backward, it expands, N points becoming 2N - 1. Therefore, after it completes each pair of steps, one forward and one backward, one direction will always have more points. We'll call this direction forward in time. This asymmetry is all we need to explain why, when matter and antimatter annihilated in the early universe, there was plenty of matter left over, but no antimatter.
..................................................................................................................
What is the resolution of this seeming conflict between the "laws of physics" and our experience? We have seen that the universe has a logical structure that seems to say that it has many cardinalities at once. Looked at in another way, the universe seems to expand, with the logical progression from lesser to greater cardinalities playing the role of time. However, there is actually no time between these logical levels. Time, like spatial position, is an intrinsic quantum number of a spacetime point. Two points can have different time quantum numbers without there being any point with an intermediate time quantum number. In other words, there is actually no time, just as there is no space. What we perceive is the position and time quantum numbers of spacetime points, and since our existence depends on their differences, we see time flowing."

More at: http://home.earthlink.net/~dolascetta/ISTModel.pdf

Cheers.

P.S. An interesting site with useful (and categorized) links:
http://www.ws5.com/spacetime/

 

"Δt and Δx are undefined and could be nonzero."

This is getting close to the sniglet "nero".

 

undefined nero be nonzero Zapatero....