Re: How time wars start..

[Dan Goodman]

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 10:56:15 -0700, nu...@bid.nes wrote:

> On Mar 27, 9:53 pm, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
>> http://xkcd.com/1191/
>
> But each incursion into the past for a given resource would
> "prematurely" use up that resource making it even scarcer at the time
> the incursion is initiated, so they'd have to go farther back "in each
> iteration". To save effort we should figure out how to mine the Big
> Bang.

No. Go back into a previous cycle of the universe.




--
Dan Goodman

[D.F. Manno]

In article <h4WdnaE9366EJcnM...@iphouse.net>,

But then you're changing the conditions leading up to the last Big Bang,
which could result in a universe that has no need for the resource for
any of a myriad of reasons, like no humans.

--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
GOP delenda est!

[JTEM]

"D.F. Manno" <dfma...@mail.com> wrote:

>  Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
> > No.  Go back into a previous cycle of the universe.
>
> But then you're changing the conditions leading up to the last Big Bang,
> which could result in a universe that has no need for the resource for
> any of a myriad of reasons, like no humans.

This makes no sense. Time doesn't exist outside
the context of the universe. This is what makes
the "Multiverse" theory to tantalizing -- as any
and all "cycles" doesn't appear in any "different"
place or time. It's just how we experience things.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Quadibloc]

On Apr 2, 12:26 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This makes no sense.  Time doesn't exist outside
> the context of the universe.

If a universe collapses, into a black hole, and then that black hole
breaks open, giving rise to a new universe, these are all events that
happen one after another in causal sequence. So time appears to be
doing a very good job of existing.

John Savard

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Or alternatively casual language is simply utterly unsuited to
discussing phenomena so beyond ordinary human experience. My own
intuition agrees with you, but I know for a fact that my intuition is
wrong in many areas, especially high-end physics, so I would be utterly
unsurprised to learn that once the full collapse happens there is in
fact no way left to tell the sequence, and what we call the "next"
universe could as easily be called the "previous" universe.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[John F. Eldredge]

Or you could use the many-worlds hypothesis, that the timeline forks
whenever a situation could go more than one way. So, you aren't mining
your own past, but rather a different past.

--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly
is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 4/2/2013 5:03 AM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 4/2/13 3:16 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Apr 2, 12:26 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This makes no sense. Time doesn't exist outside
>>> the context of the universe.
>>
>> If a universe collapses, into a black hole, and then that black hole
>> breaks open, giving rise to a new universe, these are all events that
>> happen one after another in causal sequence. So time appears to be
>> doing a very good job of existing.
>
>
> Or alternatively casual language is simply utterly unsuited to
> discussing phenomena so beyond ordinary human experience. My own
> intuition agrees with you, but I know for a fact that my intuition is
> wrong in many areas, especially high-end physics, so I would be utterly
> unsurprised to learn that once the full collapse happens there is in
> fact no way left to tell the sequence, and what we call the "next"
> universe could as easily be called the "previous" universe.
>
>

Or just the same/different universe occurring at the same time, thereby
giving rise to the "multiverse".

--
The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with
methamphetamine, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate
wouldn't tolerate.

[JTEM]

Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> If a universe collapses, into a black hole, and then that black hole
> breaks open, giving rise to a new universe, these are all events that
> happen one after another in causal sequence. So time appears to be
> doing a very good job of existing.

Time is a creation of the universe. It doesn't
exist if the universe doesn't exist.

Your error here is in thinking that your perspective,
your experience is the only one.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[J. Clarke]

In article <c93685ef-b5b5-48e7-b6c0-dc76d2431634
@h9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>, jte...@gmail.com says...

>
> Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> > If a universe collapses, into a black hole, and then that black hole
> > breaks open, giving rise to a new universe, these are all events that
> > happen one after another in causal sequence. So time appears to be
> > doing a very good job of existing.
>
> Time is a creation of the universe. It doesn't
> exist if the universe doesn't exist.

And you determined that with what experiment? No experiment? Then what
analytical model throughly backed by experimental results requires it?
No model? Then how do you know? Revealed Truth?

> Your error here is in thinking that your perspective,
> your experience is the only one.

You have experienced the end and beginning of the universe? Are you
saying you're God?

[Quadibloc]

On Apr 3, 4:57 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarkeuse...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <c93685ef-b5b5-48e7-b6c0-dc76d2431634
> @h9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>, jte...@gmail.com says...

> > Time is a creation of the universe.  It doesn't
> > exist if the universe doesn't exist.
>
> And you determined that with what experiment?  No experiment?  Then what
> analytical model throughly backed by experimental results requires it?
> No model? Then how do you know?  Revealed Truth?

Well, an apparently competent authority has made this very claim, so
even if I'm not sure if I agree, one cannot really blame a layperson
for deferring to his expertise.

Stephen Hawking, in his "A Brief History of Time" says as much.

John Savard

[alie...@gmail.com]

When using "argument by authority" it's useful to examine the
authority's track record. Hawking's been shown to be wrong on more
than one (fairly important) point.

There is no a priori reason to reject some sort of meta-time in
which temporal sequences (like the beginning, duration, and end of
universes) are imbedded.


Mark L. Fergerson

[J. Clarke]

In article <583c086f-6846-4147-a0b8-4961bcd1f179
@gb2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

Fair enough, but don't take anything that a physicist says about
conditions before the Big Bang without a large dose of salt.

[Quadibloc]

On Apr 3, 2:51 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarkeuse...@cox.net> wrote:
> Fair enough, but don't take anything that a physicist says about
> conditions before the Big Bang without a large dose of salt.

As I've noted, I don't even agree with Hawking - but I'm noting that
one does have to cut a layperson some slack for uncritically accepting
what he says. That was the only point I was trying to make.

John Savard

[JTEM]

"J. Clarke" <jclarkeuse...@cox.net> wrote:

> And you determined that with what experiment?  No experiment?  Then what
> analytical model throughly backed by experimental results requires it?
> No model? Then how do you know?  Revealed Truth?

Oh, please. this is ridiculous.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

"n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:

>   When using "argument by authority" it's useful to examine the
> authority's track record. Hawking's been shown to be wrong on more
> than one (fairly important) point.

Oh, I'm sorry, I hadn't realized that you
were present before the Big Bang and can
attest to the existence of time.

Please. You people aren't very good at
faking it...


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> Well, an apparently competent authority has made this very claim, so
> even if I'm not sure if I agree, one cannot really blame a layperson
> for deferring to his expertise.

Hi. "Spacetime." You may have heard of it.

If space & time are one, then you can't have
time before space. And, the space was created
by... by... what?

"The Big Bang," you say?

That's right. Now it's clicking...


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[J. Clarke]

In article <8d2bfb25-9d3d-4829-a485-
90f0a8...@m21g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, jte...@gmail.com says...

>
> "J. Clarke" <jclarkeuse...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > And you determined that with what experiment?  No experiment?  Then what
> > analytical model throughly backed by experimental results requires it?
> > No model? Then how do you know?  Revealed Truth?
>
> Oh, please. this is ridiculous.

A devastating riposte if ever I did not see one.

And having looked at your blog and your other responses, I don't
particularly care to see another.

<plonk>

[Howard Brazee]

On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:51:48 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net>
wrote:

>Fair enough, but don't take anything that a physicist says about
>conditions before the Big Bang without a large dose of salt.

That's a funny sentence, implying that non-physicists should be
trusted more.

--
Anybody who agrees with one side all of the time or disagrees with the
other side all of the time is equally guilty of letting others do
their thinking for them.

[Rod Speed]

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote

> J. Clarke <jclark...@cox.net> wrote

>> Fair enough, but don't take anything that a physicist says about
>> conditions before the Big Bang without a large dose of salt.

> That's a funny sentence,

Just rather stupid.

> implying that non-physicists should be trusted more.

It 'implys' nothing of the sort.

Its JUST a commentary on his opinion about physicists.

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Apr 3, 9:13 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >   When using "argument by authority" it's useful to examine the
> > authority's track record. Hawking's been shown to be wrong on more
> > than one (fairly important) point.
>
> Oh, I'm sorry, I hadn't realized that you
> were present before the Big Bang and can
> attest to the existence of time.

Oh, I'm sorry, I hadn't realized you were an ass.

> Please.  You people aren't very good at
> faking it...

Is your other screen name Starmaker?


Mark L. Fergerson

[JTEM]

"J. Clarke" <jclarkeuse...@cox.net> wrote:

> A devastating riposte if ever I did not see one.

Seriously, you were too stupid to realize that
your argument (and then some) is better applied
AGAINST your position. You're not worth wasting
my (irony alert) time on.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

"n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:

>   Oh, I'm sorry, I hadn't realized you were an ass.

You didn't realize that your idiocy doesn't make
anyone else an ass, either.

We could make this an awful lot shorter if you
simply listed the small number of things which
you DID realize...


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[William December Starr]

In article <dfmanno-369D66...@news.albasani.net>,
"D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com> said:

> Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>> No. Go back into a previous cycle of the universe.
>
> But then you're changing the conditions leading up to the last Big
> Bang, which could result in a universe that has no need for the
> resource for any of a myriad of reasons, like no humans.

"Consequences, shmonsequences, as long as I'm rich!"

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <8d2bfb25-9d3d-4829...@m21g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,

JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> said:

> "J. Clarke" <jclarkeuse...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> And you determined that with what experiment? �No experiment?
>> �Then what analytical model throughly backed by experimental
>> results requires it? No model? Then how do you know? �Revealed
>> Truth?
>
> Oh, please. this is ridiculous.

Translation: "I got nuttin."

-- wds

[JTEM]

wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:

> Translation: "I got nuttin."

If you had taken your meds instead of wasted
your time pretending to be a physicist you
might've considered "Spacetime."

Nimrod.

...not that I hadn't already explained it.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Walter Bushell]

In article <as174o...@mid.individual.net>,

"John F. Eldredge" <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:

> Or you could use the many-worlds hypothesis, that the timeline forks
> whenever a situation could go more than one way. So, you aren't mining
> your own past, but rather a different past.

Piper used a similar scheme in his Paratime stories. One timeline
exploiting many of the others with no chronological time shift.
Turtledove used the same conceit.

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx

[Walter Bushell]

In article <dfmanno-369D66...@news.albasani.net>,

Think of all the suffering and trouble that would save. If universal
bereavement is an inspiring achievement as T. Lehrer sung, just think
of how much more inspiring preventing our entire Universe would be.