Interesting observation RP, and I will go back to the study of Zero Point Energy with that one! The most interesting terms being Time (as this dimension) and limitless, which are the possibilities! First let me state that order has been found to exist in chaotic systems even though it is not apparent. The second law of thermodynamics states within it that entropy, the measure of disorder in closed systems, and it's direction towards increasing disorder can not be reversed. But we are not necessarily talking about a closed system. In open systems an influx of energy can can re-establish order and maintain it's equilibrium. The more structured a system, however, the more energy is required to re-establish order and maintain it. This deos not contradict the second law of thermodynamics but let's add a dimension to the known dimensions as James Maxwell did, we shall call it intent or something of the like. Read about Maxwell's experiment at; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%99s_Demon http://www.auburn.edu/~smith01/notes/maxdem.htm
On Jul 2, 1:28 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > If time is just a dimension and space-time continuum a reality, then there > is nothing before or after this universe as that would mean that Time > itself is apart from this universe and limitless. > > > > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 30 June, 19:01, "pol.science kid" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > So..it happens over and over again?...but if it happens over and over > > > again.. the big bang throw out i mean..is it the same pattern always.. or > > is > > > it different each time.. are there infinite possibilities... > > > I would think that it's ever-so-slightly different each time. And, I > > would think that the difference is at the 'distillation' time (the > > 'Inflationary Period') when matter precipitates from the 'cosmic soup' > > just after the Big Bang, that way, the entire universe can re-settle > > itself and form a completely different universe than the one prior or > > the one after. And, yes, the possibilities, while, not necessarily > > infinite, are so incredibly huge as to be close enough to > > 'countless'. Think on the order of googolplexes of googolplexes of > > googolplexes, where a googolplex is a googol (a 1 with a hundred > > zeroes after it) to the googolth power. There may truely be a limit > > as to what can be done with energy, but there is still a vast and > > countless number of possibilities and my estimate above could be off > > by a googolplex of googolplexes of googolplexes, and THAT could be off > > by just as much. So, like I said, not strictly, NECESSARILY, > > infinite, but absolutely, hugely countless. > > > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Pat <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > On 29 June, 20:50, "pol.science kid" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > sorry for my ignorance but could any one tell me wat serial universes > > > > > are....... > > > > > As I happened to HAVE to come back in to work in order to try to book > > > > a flight, I thought I'd take a peek back here again. What I mean by > > > > 'serial universes' is 'one after another', i.e., universes in a > > > > series, like episodes of os a soap opera. In this case, the case of > > > > universes, each episode starts with a Big Bang and ends with a > > > > cataclysmic/apocalyptic 'Last Day' where the matter of this universe > > > > expands into the anit-matter wall that forms the outer boundary of the > > > > medium through which our space-time expands. Once the huge matter > > > > antimatter collision takes place, this leaves nothing but light > > > > (photons) and, if the boundary of the medium is shaped like a donut > > > > (torus), those photons will wrap around to the centre and re-start the > > > > sequence again with a new Big Bang. > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Pat <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On 21 June, 20:10, "pol.science kid" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > So how does the idea of parallel uiverse figure in the already > > > > decided > > > > > > chain > > > > > > > of events? > > > > > > > They're unnecessary, as a 'proper geometry' can account for serial > > > > > > universes in which all possibilities can be explored. Basically, > > > > > > while parallel universes are 'possible' they aren't as likely as > > > > > > 'serial universes', which can be handled by simple geometry of the > > > > > > overall system. When you have 'all of time' you gain NOTHING by > > > > > > performing events in parallel, so there is no 'gain' in parallel > > > > > > universes. In other words, the concept of parallel universes > > doesn't > > > > > > pass 'Occam's Razor'. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Pat < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 18 June, 13:09, "[email protected]" < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yes RP I agree. > > > > > > > > > > We do it seems have much choice, and we do indeed often have > > > > none. > > > > > > > > > > An accident, will change the choices that we have and so the > > > > choices > > > > > > > > > that we make. The future is not defined, > > > > > > > > > Einstein proved that incorrect 105 years ago. Proved! Since > > then, > > > > it > > > > > > > > has never been disproved, rather, only supported. There is > > truth, > > > > > > > > though, in your words...the word 'seems'. It seems that we > > have > > > > > > > > choices. That IS true. But it is an illusion. And I KNOW we > > > > don't > > > > > > > > want to go 'round and round' this again. Do we? LOL!! ;-) > > > > > > > > > >both human choice and > > > > > > > > > circumstances beyond our control for which we have no choices > > to > > > > > > make, > > > > > > > > > go a loong way in deciding what our futures will be. > > > > > > > > > > On 17 June, 21:07, hassan yacoub <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > no we are not bound by the future but the future is bound > > by > > > > our > > > > > > > > present and > > > > > > > > > > it is affected by what we do now and whatever we choice and > > it > > > > is > > > > > > too > > > > > > > > (the > > > > > > > > > > future )a result of the present and this future depends > > upon > > > > the > > > > > > effort > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > do we try and we may succeed or not we try to do our best > > and > > > > as > > > > > > much > > > > > > > > as we > > > > > > > > > > are strong in mind and in body and educated well by good > > > > knowledge > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > > succeed and our action be right even right in a place may > > be > > > > wrong > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > how > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:46 AM, RP <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Pat says that we are bound by the future and our choices > > are > > > > > > > > therefore > > > > > > > > > > > those which result in a particular future event. I beg to > > > > differ > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > believe that our present actions are the result of our > > > > effort > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > endeavour, but our effort is bound by our physical and > > > > > > psychological > > > > > > > > > > > motives in reaction to the present nature of the > > environment. > > > > > > That > > > > > > > > > > > what we do becomes definite doesn't change the nature of > > > > actions. > > > > > > We > > > > > > > > > > > try to change ourselves and act with a resolve to create > > a > > > > > > certain > > > > > > > > > > > future , and that future is an effect of our actions and > > not > > > > > > > > > > > viceversa. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > hi to all- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > -- > > > > > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > -- > > > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
