Of course, there are (seemingly) infinite possibilities in how we progress through our lives, but I think what we do here in the world we all know is a one-way street.

If that were true, then there's no concept of choice or free will. I.e. "Everything that happens, happens for a reason and couldn't have happened any other way." That kind of thinking is very problematic, to put it politely.

Would it really be preferable if we could say things happen for no reason? That sounds like chaos to me.

It would be preferable if we said things happen by random chance, as is the case. Reason is just a human attempt to apply justification to an event and form judgments. "Chaos" is one of those judgments.

I suspect that many things which appear to occur by random chance might be seen as happening as part of an orderly pattern, if we has sufficient knowledge of all the causative factors affecting these events.

Why am I perhaps being told that it is still supposed to be science?

Good figures, if not any drawings, by OzzFan here, at the bottom, explaining this way of evolution for that of the Universe.

But next, is such a thing as Quarks perhaps the same as any Quantum mechanics, except for the similarity of the words themselves?

But rather that we are living in an inflationary Universe, which supposedly came out of nothing, next making for both a given Existence, if not also a presence.

Make it perhaps science one day and next that of possible Religion the other day and also you could end up asking a couple of Philosophical questions as well.

Sometimes these things could be related, while other times perhaps not, but my guess is that some of these questions are still left for the scientists to make definitive answers.

I also don't buy the concept of curved space. We know that gravity can curve light, but that is light as an item within space, not space itself.

Chris the distortion of space/time has been proven. If it did not the LIGO detectors would not work. If you think their recent findings are a fraud you are joining the flat earth society.

---

Of course, there are (seemingly) infinite possibilities in how we progress through our lives, but I think what we do here in the world we all know is a one-way street.

If that were true, then there's no concept of choice or free will. I.e. "Everything that happens, happens for a reason and couldn't have happened any other way." That kind of thinking is very problematic, to put it politely.

Would it really be preferable if we could say things happen for no reason? That sounds like chaos to me.

It would be preferable if we said things happen by random chance, as is the case. Reason is just a human attempt to apply justification to an event and form judgments. "Chaos" is one of those judgments.

I suspect that many things which appear to occur by random chance might be seen as happening as part of an orderly pattern, if we has sufficient knowledge of all the causative factors affecting these events.

I would agree that the mechanics of the Universe tend to happen in what appears to be orderly, however the actual progression of certain events is by pure chance and random probability.

I would agree that the mechanics of the Universe tend to happen in what appears to be orderly, however the actual progression of certain events is by pure chance and random probability.

Which next should be yet another indication that the Universe perhaps is not having a divine Creator for its initial moment of creation and next what also the latter is supposed to be.

Back in July, I read about a particle that was believed to be both anti-matter and matter. Might have no relevance to the current topic, but thought I'd post it anyway.

Angel particles

Interesting, but I'm confused.

The article said ''When the Big Bang created the universe out of nothing.'' Is a paradox of the physics and contradicts the law of conservation of mass: Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed.
This is involves a change of law of physics?

Or maybe the laws of physics didn't come into play until after the Big Bang. Without knowing the parameters and conditions before the Big Bang, we can't presume that everything we know still applies before the event.

Or maybe the laws of physics didn't come into play until after the Big Bang. Without knowing the parameters and conditions before the Big Bang, we can't presume that everything we know still applies before the event.

+1

---

I dislike the term "space/time".

So what? That is the only thing the LIGO observatories are measuring.

---

I still have a hard time wrapping my head around time dilation.

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

I still have a hard time wrapping my head around time dilation.

Well you know it does because GPS satellites have to compensate for it in order for them to work properly.

---

I still have a hard time wrapping my head around time dilation.

Well you know it does because GPS satellites have to compensate for it in order for them to work properly.

It's expanding on that in a grand scale that I have trouble with.

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

If somebody from earth travels to Alpha Centauri at close to the speed of light, and then comes back at the same speed, around 10 years should have passed for the astronaut, right? But how many years have gone by on earth? ~That's where I'm confused.

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

No, ten years would pass on earth, the astronaut much less time. Just like time passes more slowly on the GPS satellite.

---

Perhaps two different subjects here, if not even more, but except for sometimes losing track of both time and place, even with a GPS,
my personal interest lies with that of perhaps believing in the Universe as a result of laws which came into existence when it was created.

If we next happen to question why the Universe came into existence, we also could be questioning a possible Creator for such a thing as well
and next it becomes one given context for such, rather than another.

Asking such a thing as "What came before the Universe", only because we could be left with such a Creator in mind and you next also change the reason for why
such a thing as Laws are also present for much the same.

If you take that of Creation myth literally, or at least part of it, it says "In the beginning, God created both the Earth and the Universe and next saw that it was good".

If perhaps so, it next becomes a difference already at the start, in possibly believing in both God and also the Universe.

But rather the fact that scientists choose only to run half the mile here, except for rather the whole of it, when asking questions about its existence,
assuming that it could be explained by such Laws.

The usual belief of thinking that perhaps water is interfacing that of air some times, but next that it should be the finger of God who once created Adam, the fact is that I do not
believe in such a story.

There perhaps could be a difference between humans and nature as well, but for that of the creation of the Universe as a whole,
I do not think we have a simple answer to the question.

If you think that Uncle Sam could both be lifting a finger, as well as sometimes help you as well, I do not think that this is of any much help either.

Both Laws and Equations are synonymous with elementary particles currently known and also the Theories which could be used in order to link everything together.

If perhaps Faith should be something else, most likely there should not be any Method of Proof for such a thing either, because it always ends up in a different context.

A given notion of God could perhaps be explained, but always in a different context than that of telling about both elementary particles and also any Laws.

Therefore, first think of what Creation itself is supposed to mean and next the reason for why it is happening, or being possible and you could be closer to an answer.

No, ten years would pass on earth, the astronaut much less time. Just like time passes more slowly on the GPS satellite.

I'm having a hard time differentiating this concept from me taking a trip from New York to Los Angeles. If I'm a sightseer, and it takes me a year to drive the journey, a year still passes the same for everyone along the way, right? Even if I take a fast non-stop airplane, the same amount of time has passed for me and everybody else, right? Or does the fact I'm a little further away from the gravity of the earth, and going faster than the car, make time go a little slower for me versus everybody else on the ground?

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

Anyway Gordon, we already know that we could always choose to disagree, because I am catching your point.

Who started the discussion about time here as a subject and that even this subject could be within a framework, if not context of any else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

Is this supposed to be about the Standard Model of Physics?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

Let us start here, perhaps, because that above became a small new one, except for that of Lorentz transformation, which is a longer article.

So, Lorentz factor down at the middle of the page could next make some relationship with that of the Butterfly effect, or its corresponding functions, or elements.

Next it should still be that of Special Theory of Relativity as well and therefore quite happy to read above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

Like the perhaps bad example of water sometimes interfacing air, that of space and time itself interfacing with each other, should rather be a better explanation.

If time could perhaps be quantisized, also we should know about the story for this as well, in that Einstein apparently was not fond of the idea.

Or if perhaps that of gravity itself and next that of time, in order to understand that of Quantum mechanics, I possibly get the order sorted out.

We could be left understanding the way space and time interact with each other, because while time could also be quantisized, it also could be put in a context for such and
become a "Frame of reference" for such a thing as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference

Here perhaps not the total explanation, but for now the closest I get, except for the other subjects dealing with that of time.

I would like to revisit this 100 years from now and see how much of this has proven to be utter nonsense. But right now to me, in the great big scheme of things, all I have to say is what difference does it make?

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

The issue with time dilation is you can't take the exact same path on the reverse trip.

There are several ways to visualize the concept. One being a "light clock" A single photon bouncing between a pair of perfect mirrors ticking off one second intervals. (Yes I know the mirrors are a bit far apart in reality, but as a thought experiment it works)

Sitting still you see the photon has a distance between the mirrors to go. As the you and the clock move faster the photon has to travel the distance between the mirrors and the distance forward you have gone. So the ticks are now farther apart. Most people understand that.

The thing most don't get is why time seems faster as you are heading to something. That is because you are overtaking the past. At your place you can only know about something after a photon takes a trip from the place it happened to you. So as you close the distance towards the source you run into the photons sooner than if you stayed put. This usually is thought of as the pitch of a train whistle or the Doppler effect. So red light is now blue. But red is the frequency or how many ticks of the light clock, blue is more ticks of the clock (as timed by your clock)

Now as to why the ages don't match when you get back, well you can't take the reverse trip in spacetime. But drawing a diagram will show you what actually happens. Have your traveler and earth bound agree to send each other a message once a year. Have one axis be time and the other how far away the traveler is. They exchange messages at the start and both clocks are in sync. A year later on earth the message goes out. But a year hasn't passed on the ship. It will be some time in transit before our traveler sees it. By the time he gets to the turn around point there are several messages in transit. As he comes back he runs into those messages. He runs into more than he sent.

I know I haven't given a picture yet. If you use years and light years a 45 degree is the speed of light. Have our traveler go half that or 22.5 degrees down and away from earth. Earth's time is a straight line down. Draw your message from earth at one years intervals heading to your traveler at 45 degrees or the speed of light. You will see on the return trip, a 22.5 degree line back to earth how he runs into many more messages.

For the travelers messages to earth take equal 1 year intervals along his path and draw 45 down to earth. Now it is rather obvious what has happened.

If I'm a sightseer, and it takes me a year to drive the journey, a year still passes the same for everyone along the way, right? Even if I take a fast non-stop airplane, the same amount of time has passed for me and everybody else, right?

No if you take a fast plane you will experience less time than everybody else.

---