Time Loop Theory: Likely?

[blackattackbitch]

I honestly don't want this theory to prove correct because it's proof would mean that life is utterly and completely pointless. However, here it goes:

According to Einstein, matter cannot be created nor destroyed. it can only be changed. Same with energy, as far as I know. That being said, matter must have always existed. Which means that there was never a point where there was nothingness. However, most people say that time is linear, which means that everything had to begin at some point. However, something can't be born out of nothing. THis is the logical equivalent of 0 X 5, which still equals zero. Also, time has to be eternal also, since time can't just begin out of nothing either.

Now barring the existence of a god (the existence of God helps this theory, but I want to keep it strictly logical) and allowing that existence extends beyond our universe, it's easy to conclude that time flows in a loop. That allows matter to exist forever and energy to exist forever. That even helps with the big bang theory, previously a belief that pure nothingness just exploded into something.

(Sidenote: maybe our "big bang" wasn't the only big bang. Maybe it was one in a never-ending series of big bangs. That begs the question of whether this universe will die one day, or even collide with another universe.)

[Fuckle]

Sounds like the Oscillating Universe Theory

[thenewbies]

The matter theory is correct, I think. The time loop would just mean that atheists can live twice too. Anyway, I'd like to live a life, not think about it.

[Hoeloe]

If you actually explained what the theory is, it might help.
Fortunately, I think I know which you are talking about, though the God has nothing to do with it, contrary to what you just said.
I think he is talking about the theory of time as a circle, rather than a linear progression. According to Einstein, space time is curved, so this has a scientific basis. It would also explain the beginning of the Universe as being the same point in time as the end of the Universe, as time is a dimension restricted to this Universe, it would be theoretically impossible to image a time in between the creation and demise. I actually think this is an excellent theory (it is also one I thought of myself without any prior knowledge, which I feel rather proud of ;D). It is probably the most solidly evidenced theory of the nature of the Universe.

[Glowstick-warroir]

It only works in closed system. because there is dark matter and the edge of out universe, assuming it was there before the big bag, energy would be released into it. and thus, the big bags would losing energy again, and again, until they where no more.

[SpeedyPac]

I dont know if Time is linear, I would guess it's 3D. We live in a 3D world, so everything to us is 3D

[Bacchanalian]

Seems like someone forgot the difference between a line, a segment, and a vector.

[SpeedyPac]

Time isn't visible, so you really can't say it's linear.

[theshadowwolf]

At 12/14/08 02:51 PM, SpeedyPac wrote: Time isn't visible, so you really can't say it's linear.

That's not an excuse...

[Bacchanalian]

At 12/14/08 02:51 PM, SpeedyPac wrote: Time isn't visible, so you really can't say it's linear.

I think it's pretty well understand that it's a repesentation.

Isn't that like... the fucking point of visual aids? To help visualize a concept?

Christ.

But back to the OP. If time never ending or beginning is the criteria, then a linear model works just as well as a circle.

[blackattackbitch]

At 12/14/08 02:45 PM, Fuckle wrote: Sounds like the Oscillating Universe Theory

My Time-Loop theory and the Oscillating Universe Theory are very similar. However, my theory accounts for an open universe, whilst his accounts only for a closed universe. I still don't understand the flat universe theory, so I'm leaving that alone. Furthermore, my theory accounts for the existence of other universes besides ours, while his only accounts for just 1.

Oh and to tack onto my theory, maybe time loops because time eventually expends all the possibilities of different events happening, thus it's forced to repeat itself.

[SpeedyPac]

The Past and the Future are just a concept. I've never lived in the past, and I've never lived in the Future. The only time I've ever lived is right now. The rest is in my head.

[SteveGuzzi]

Time is more like a corkscrew than it is a line or circle.

[blackattackbitch]

At 12/14/08 03:01 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote: Time is more like a corkscrew than it is a line or circle.

In what ways is time more like a corkscrew?

[SpeedyPac]

If time moves along a line, or a corkscrew, then what is the speed of time? How do you measure it?

[Bacchanalian]

At 12/14/08 02:57 PM, blackattackbitch wrote: Oh and to tack onto my theory, maybe time loops because time eventually expends all the possibilities of different events happening, thus it's forced to repeat itself.

Could also be a curly line :P

At 12/14/08 02:57 PM, SpeedyPac wrote: The Past and the Future are just a concept. I've never lived in the past, and I've never lived in the Future. The only time I've ever lived is right now. The rest is in my head.

That sounds so familiar. But anyway. You realize you're decribing the now in the past tense right? Cause then it's all "just" concepts whatever the hell that means. And it's all in your head. What a revelation.

[Hoeloe]

Time is complicated. It does move at a speed which is relative to the observers position in space and the speed of the observers movement. This is demonstrated with the well-known nuclear clock experiment, in which 3 nuclear clocks are placed, one on the ground, 2 in two different speeds of aircraft. These fly around the world and when they get back to the point of the grounded clock, the clocks all show different times (very slightly different, but still different). The clocks are all set to the same time before the craft takes off, and as the clocks are nuclear, they cannot have gone out of sync. Time around them has been altered by the speed they have been travelling.

[blackattackbitch]

At 12/14/08 03:02 PM, blackattackbitch wrote:

At 12/14/08 03:01 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote: Time is more like a corkscrew than it is a line or circle.

In what ways is time more like a corkscrew?

Actually, it doesn't matter what shape time takes, the point is whether time has a beginning and end. My theory is that time doesn't, it loops after exhausting all possibilities.

[RubberTrucky]

At 12/14/08 02:49 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Seems like someone forgot the difference between a line, a segment, and a vector.

and pseudo vectors and axial vectors and scalars and tensors and...

I have avoided relativity, cause it' really confusing me.

[Bacchanalian]

At 12/14/08 03:07 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 12/14/08 02:49 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Seems like someone forgot the difference between a line, a segment, and a vector.

and pseudo vectors and axial vectors and scalars and tensors and...

I have avoided relativity, cause it' really confusing me.

Yeah well so has the original poster. But who cares about that when you can explain time through a simple geometric model and account for multiple open universes at the same time!?

[blackattackbitch]

At 12/14/08 03:12 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 12/14/08 03:07 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 12/14/08 02:49 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Seems like someone forgot the difference between a line, a segment, and a vector.

and pseudo vectors and axial vectors and scalars and tensors and...

I have avoided relativity, cause it' really confusing me.

Yeah well so has the original poster. But who cares about that when you can explain time through a simple geometric model and account for multiple open universes at the same time!?

Ok, since you have so much opposition to this theory, you wouldn't mind telling me what's wrong with this theory and what you think may be a better way to explain how nothing spawned something.

I came up with this theory in only 30 minutes, so I welcome all attempts to break it down.

[Bacchanalian]

At 12/14/08 03:16 PM, blackattackbitch wrote: Ok, since you have so much opposition to this theory, you wouldn't mind telling me what's wrong with this theory and what you think may be a better way to explain how nothing spawned something.

Behold. A geometry with no end nor beginning...

<------------------>

Looks an awful lot like a line.

And if time is infinite on a linear model, it never 'runs out' of variation, so there's no need for a circular model to represent it... though you could make a little loop for ever cell that replicates etc.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 12/14/08 03:02 PM, blackattackbitch wrote: In what ways is time more like a corkscrew?

Time is cyclical in nature yet each cycle does not conclude as the beginning of itself. It isn't a simple circle because a circle is closed. It isn't a simple line because it exhibits patterns and parallelisms with... well, itself. So, in a manner of speaking it's both circle AND line... which is exactly what a corkscrew is.

Time loops... but even though one point parallels another, that point is not EQUIVALENT to the other point. If you look at time in a linear fashion you are focusing on the bar of metal on the corkscrew and not the shape it eventually forms. If you look at time cyclically you are focusing on the corkscrew's shape -- how one section lines up perfectly with all the other sections above and beneath it. But that one section is not the other sections. It's its own section.

The "problem of time" is similar to the paradox of discreteness vs. continuity, or particle vs. wave. Is there such a thing as discrete "moments" that cannot be broken down any further, or is it all just one ever-flowing wave of "now"? Are particles really like little billiard balls bouncing off each other, or are they ever-flowing waves of potentiality and probabilities creating interference patterns as they collide?

[MyMonkey]

At 12/14/08 02:39 PM, blackattackbitch wrote: there was never a point where there was nothingness.

Did you not know that non-existance is a form of existance?

[blackattackbitch]

At 12/14/08 03:21 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 12/14/08 03:16 PM, blackattackbitch wrote: Ok, since you have so much opposition to this theory, you wouldn't mind telling me what's wrong with this theory and what you think may be a better way to explain how nothing spawned something.

Behold. A geometry with no end nor beginning...

<------------------>

Looks an awful lot like a line.

And if time is infinite on a linear model, it never 'runs out' of variation, so there's no need for a circular model to represent it... though you could make a little loop for ever cell that replicates etc.

If matter can never be destroyed or created, it's going to run out of variations eventually. I'm having a hard time seeing how time could never repeat itself when left with a limited number of resources to work with.

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

Simple. It was God.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 12/14/08 03:03 PM, SpeedyPac wrote: If time moves along a line, or a corkscrew, then what is the speed of time? How do you measure it?

Time has no speed in and of itself.

Time itself is a perception reliant upon a perceiver, so time is purely subjective in nature.

You know what they say... "time flies when you're having fun." And hell if it doesn't drag when you aren't having fun. So did time itself change, or was it just the perceiver who changed his or her perception of it? I'm thinking it's the latter as opposed to the former.

[Bacchanalian]

At 12/14/08 03:30 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote: Time loops... but even though one point parallels another, that point is not EQUIVALENT to the other point.

Curly lines! Curly lines!

The "problem of time"

Are you asking two different questions or is the latter an extension of the former? Cause collisions that make up interference patterns seem kind of... discrete... to me.

[Bacchanalian]

At 12/14/08 03:34 PM, blackattackbitch wrote: If matter can never be destroyed or created, it's going to run out of variations eventually. I'm having a hard time seeing how time could never repeat itself when left with a limited number of resources to work with.

If the resources allow for more than one variable/occurence, then all you need is infinite time to have infinite variation.

10101010101010... 0. Aw shit. Wait.... 10101010101010100 it's repeating! 11. Damnit!

[SteveGuzzi]

At 12/14/08 03:39 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Are you asking two different questions or is the latter an extension of the former? Cause collisions that make up interference patterns seem kind of... discrete... to me.

An interference pattern is a wave generated by the collision of two or move waves.

Particles are "discrete" in the sense that they are considered self-contained and independant of other particles. They are their own object, so to speak. Wave are NOT considered discrete in this sense -- a wave is not an object itself but rather a pattern that propagates-through a medium (of object(s)).