Time Travel/Bootstrap Paradox?

[Neogaia777]

And now your probably going to say to me, well, it was spacetime that expanded or grew or was expanding in or at or from the very beginning, so of course it would be the same age equally everywhere, etc. But, if that is the case, then it must have expanded very, very fast at the very beginning, and then all but stopped, or slowed way, way down very much severely, very, very shortly after that, etc. But then, that would also directly contradict the evidence that says that the universe is still expanding, and is accelerating right now in that expansion?

Take Care/God Bless.

I believe I have the real answer, and it's in my posts so far in this thread (links below).

Are scientist wrong about how gravity works?

"A theoretical proposal published in the journal Reports on Progress in Physics is making some bold claims about our previous understanding of quantum physics. Mainly, that we were wrong. The proposed theory grapples with the fact that quantum mechanics (basically modern physics) and general...

www.christianforums.com

Are scientist wrong about how gravity works?

"A theoretical proposal published in the journal Reports on Progress in Physics is making some bold claims about our previous understanding of quantum physics. Mainly, that we were wrong. The proposed theory grapples with the fact that quantum mechanics (basically modern physics) and general...

www.christianforums.com

Are scientist wrong about how gravity works?

"A theoretical proposal published in the journal Reports on Progress in Physics is making some bold claims about our previous understanding of quantum physics. Mainly, that we were wrong. The proposed theory grapples with the fact that quantum mechanics (basically modern physics) and general...

www.christianforums.com

God Bless.

 

[SelfSim]

How old (or young) do you think the universe is? I'm guessing you go with the common consensus that it is around 13.7-8 billion years old, correct? Well, I'm just looking for an answer to my very, very simple question, etc. So, if we take that number that where we are right now at in the universe is 13.7-8 billion years old since the BB, then how old would it be if you could (theoretically) get to a place in the universe that was several billions of light years distance away from us? (I just used or just threw out the number 5 billion, but you could use any number) How old would it be there if you could get there in an instant, etc? There are only two possible answers if we use these numbers, etc. It's either 13.7-8 billion years old there, or it is 13.7-8 billion years minus 5 billion, etc. So, which is it? Because the rest of what you are saying seems like "woo" to me? There were observers before the universe began? What, are you religious or something, lol? (Although it is interesting though, and I might look more into it though, etc).

God Bless.

The age of the observable universe is based on observations of EM radiation travelling at c through a vacuum. The theoretical basis of interpretation of those observations is also based on the abundance of well-measured observations. Your question is tantamount to: 'Let's just ignore those observations and replace them with my profoundly delusional insight which contradicts all of that .. but just accept what I'm saying for no sound reason ... {etc}'.
And yet you expect a serious answer to your question?

Tossing the Cosmological Principle, along with all its supporting evidence, out the door, just because you think you have some kind of profound (yet unjustifiable) insights, is just not good enough to spend more than a microsecond of thinking time on them, my friend.

You already have your two answers to your question: (i) An imaginary number for the angular Einstein radius θₑ of observable Einstein rings contradicts the observation of Einstein Rings and (ii) Peculiar velocities in redshift surveys such as distant galaxies moving towards superclusters indicate there is zero evidence for negative gravity as a repulsive force.
In fact, you even 'liked' the answers in your response to them .. what's that if its not incoherency?

 

[Neogaia777]

The age of the observable universe is based on observations of EM radiation travelling at c through a vacuum. The theoretical basis of interpretation of those observations is also based on the abundance of well-measured observations. Your question is tantamount to: 'Let's just ignore those observations and replace them with my profoundly delusional insight which contradicts all of that .. but just accept what I'm saying for no sound reason ... {etc}'.
And yet you expect a serious answer to your question?

Tossing the Cosmological Principle, along with all its supporting evidence, out the door, just because you think you have some kind of profound (yet unjustifiable) insights, is just not good enough to spend more than a microsecond of thinking time on them, my friend.

You already have your two answers to your question: (i) An imaginary number for the angular Einstein radius θₑ of observable Einstein rings contradicts the observation of Einstein Rings and (ii) Peculiar velocities in redshift surveys such as distant galaxies moving towards superclusters indicate there is zero evidence for negative gravity as a repulsive force.
In fact, you even 'liked' the answers in your response to them .. what's that if its not incoherency?

Did you even understand my question? Because I was not disagreeing with the age of the universe, etc? How could you not have understood my very, very simple question???

Ok, let me try something else?

How old is the universe here at our current location? (Answer: 13.7-8 billion years old, correct?)

Next question: How long does it take the light/images/information to reach us from other places at our current location? (Answer: However many light years/hours/minutes it is away from us, correct?)

Next question: How young or old is it at another location that is x distance away from us at our present location? (Answer: Same time/age that it is here, since it doesn't really matter what x is since x only contains past light/images/information, correct?)

What are you not understanding here???

And as for my other discussion about negative gravity and such, which I consider to be a separate subject/different question, please see and respond to this (my) post here:

Are scientist wrong about how gravity works?

It's simple enough for a child, etc. Mathematical models of the universe are not in the realm of ‘simple enough for a child’.

www.christianforums.com

Take Care.

 

[Neogaia777]

In fact, you even 'liked' the answers in your response to them .. what's that if its not incoherency?

What are you talking about that I "liked"?

Because I'm only aware of one post that I "liked"?

 

[SelfSim]

Did you even understand my question? Because I was not disagreeing with the age of the universe, etc? How could you not have understood my very, very simple question???

Ok, let me try something else?

How old is the universe here at our current location? (Answer: 13.7-8 billion years old, correct?)

Next question: How long does it take the light/images/information to reach us from other places at our current location? (Answer: However many light years it is away from us, correct?)

Next question: How young or old is it at another location that is x distance away from us at our present location? (Answer: Same time/age that it is here, since it doesn't really matter what x is, correct?)

What are you not understanding here???

What I understand here, is that you have your answer.

And as for my discussion about negative gravity and such, which I consider to be a separate subject/different question, please see and respond to this (my) post here:

Are scientist wrong about how gravity works?

It's simple enough for a child, etc. Mathematical models of the universe are not in the realm of ‘simple enough for a child’.

www.christianforums.com

Take Care.

You are the one that introduced your other thread, in this thread, (3 times over in your post #21 above, I might add).
Yet you now say that its 'a separate subject/different question'.
.. Yet even more evidence of incoherency.

 

[SelfSim]

What are you talking about that I "liked"?

Because I'm only aware of one post that I "liked"?

Here.

In post #21 above you said: 'I believe I have the real answer, and it's in my posts so far in this thread (links below)' .. and then proceeded to paste 3 links to that thread.

(Yet even more evidence of incoherency).

 

[Neogaia777]

What I understand here, is that you have your answer.

Ok, well, "thanks", I guess?

You are the one that introduced your other thread, in this thread, (3 times over in your post #21 above, I might add).
Yet you now say that its 'a separate subject/different question'.
.. Yet even more evidence of incoherency.

Those were three different posts in that thread, but, yeah, I linked them as a possible answer/response to some questions or contradictions that came up here, etc.

But, and/or anyway, since that other thread is more about that, then let's just try to discuss that specific subject more in that thread there, ok.

Take Care.

 

[Neogaia777]

Here.

In post #21 above you said: 'I believe I have the real answer, and it's in my posts so far in this thread (links below)' .. and then proceeded to paste 3 links to that thread.

(Yet even more evidence of incoherency).

That was a "friendly" and not a "like", and that is a lot of difference there.

 

[SelfSim]

That was a "friendly" and not a "like", and that is a lot of difference there.

 

[Neogaia777]

In post #21 above you said: 'I believe I have the real answer, and it's in my posts so far in this thread (links below)' .. and then proceeded to paste 3 links to that thread.

(Yet even more evidence of incoherency).

Yes, and it was in answer to some contradictions that came up, etc? So what are you not understanding?

Either way, let's try to keep that particular discussion there now, ok. I understand that the same information/discussions can come up/cross in different threads sometimes, and I apologize for that, as I'm the one that basically did that, etc, but now, for simplicities sake now, let's try to now keep that particular topic there now, ok.

Much Thanks.

Take Care.

 

[SelfSim]

Yes, and it was in answer to some contradictions that came up, etc? So what are you not understanding?

Either way, let's try to keep that particular discussion there now, ok. I understand that the same information/discussions can come up/cross in different threads sometimes, and I apologize for that, as I'm the one that basically did that, etc, but now, for simplicities sake now, let's try to now keep that particular topic there now, ok.

Much Thanks.

Take Care.

So now that we can all now see that you have acknowledged that you have 'the real answer',

- asserting that one cannot go back in time and change an event, and then go on to speculate the antecedent condition of: 'if' one instantaneously travels 5 billion light years' ..

is a demonstration of incoherent reasoning?

 

[sjastro]

How old (or young) do you think the universe is? I'm guessing you go with the common consensus that it is around 13.7-8 billion years old, correct? Well, I'm just looking for an answer to my very, very simple question, etc. So, if we take that number that where we are right now at in the universe is 13.7-8 billion years old since the BB, then how old would it be if you could (theoretically) get to a place in the universe that was several billions of light years distance away from us? (I just used or just threw out the number 5 billion, but you could use any number) How old would it be there if you could get there in an instant, etc? There are only two possible answers if we use these numbers, etc. It's either 13.7-8 billion years old there, or it is 13.7-8 billion years minus 5 billion, etc. So, which is it? Because the rest of what you are saying seems like "woo" to me? There were observers before the universe began? What, are you religious or something, lol? (Although it is interesting though, and I might look more into it though, etc).

God Bless.

Did you even attempt to read my response which addressed your issues?
The universe is based on cosmological time which is the amount of time elapsed after some event, in this case the Big Bang. It is known as a rest frame where all observers anywhere in the universe agree on the cosmological time.

In this rest frame causality is preserved, causes precede effects, observers and the universe came after the Big Bang.
For an observer travelling at near the speed of light, the universe has aged by the amount of time dilation measured by observers in this rest frame.

If the observer travelled at instantaneous speeds or exceeded the speed of light, causes do not need to precede effects, the observer existed before the Big Bang and the universe which are clearly paradoxes.

It therefore makes absolutely no sense to even ask the question how old is the universe when such paradoxes arise.

 

[Neogaia777]

So now that we can all now see that you have acknowledged that you have 'the real answer',

I said "I think I did", I think?

- asserting that one cannot go back in time and change an event, and then go on to speculate the antecedent condition of: 'if' one instantaneously travels 5 billion light years' ..

is a demonstration of incoherent reasoning?

Are you intoxicated right now? Be honest now please? Because if so, I think we're done here for right now, etc.

I'm asking you because you seem to be acting like it right now. For example, what I had to say about going back in time, and time travel, I never once speculated that traveling 5 billion light years away was an antecedent condition of it at all, unless you can show me otherwise? I'm not going to talk to you anymore today for the rest of day if you are right now under the influence of something right now, ok.

The only thing I even remotely mentioned was only that even being able to go or travel that far away still wouldn't make a difference in time or still wouldn't permit any kind of time travel either way, etc. But that is completely different from what you are right now saying.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Did you even attempt to read my response which addressed your issues?

Did you even attempt to read any of mine?

Because it doesn't seem like it?

The universe is based on cosmological time which is the amount of time elapsed after some event, in this case the Big Bang. It is known as a rest frame where all observers anywhere in the universe agree on the cosmological time.

In this rest frame causality is preserved, causes precede effects, observers and the universe came after the Big Bang.
For an observer travelling at near the speed of light, the universe has aged by the amount of time dilation measured by observers in this rest frame.

If the observer travelled at instantaneous speeds or exceeded the speed of light, causes do not need to precede effects, the observer existed before the Big Bang and the universe which are clearly paradoxes.

It therefore makes absolutely no sense to even ask the question how old is the universe when such paradoxes arise.

You do know that there are other ways that can/could be discovered to almost instantaneously go to other distant places without ever having to travel at or near the speed of light, right? Because you seem to be getting all hung up on that, etc?

Either way, the aging of the universe never changes just because someone is traveling near or at the speed of light, but it is only their own flow rate of time "for them and them only" that ever changes, etc. For everyone and everything else, unless they too are moving or are traveling at or near those speeds, etc, it never changes for those ones, etc, but only for the ones moving at those speeds, etc, and that is only temporary for them also, etc, once they slow down, it goes back to a much more normal speed/flow rate of time for them, etc. It doesn't ever change the age or flow rate of time for anyone or anything else in the universe ever, which stays the same always, unless they too, are moving at those speeds temporarily, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[SelfSim]

I said "I think I did", I think?

Are you intoxicated right now? Be honest now please? Because if so, I think we're done here for right now, etc.

I'm asking you because you seem to be acting like it right now. For example, what I had to say about going back in time, and time travel, I never once speculated that traveling 5 billion light years away was an antecedent condition of it at all, unless you can show me otherwise? I'm not going to talk to you anymore today for the rest of day if you are right now under the influence of something right now, ok.

The only thing I even remotely mentioned was only that even being able to go or travel that far away still wouldn't make a difference in time or still wouldn't permit any kind of time travel either way, etc. But that is completely different from what you are right now saying.

Take Care/God Bless.

Ha! I ask a logical question and your response is to query my sobriety?
Hilarious!

More evidence of incoherent reasoning!

 

[Neogaia777]

The universe is based on cosmological time which is the amount of time elapsed after some event, in this case the Big Bang. It is known as a rest frame where all observers anywhere in the universe agree on the cosmological time.

Which is 13.7-8 billion years no matter where you are at in it, correct?

In this rest frame causality is preserved, causes precede effects, observers and the universe came after the Big Bang.

Glad we agree here.

For an observer travelling at near the speed of light, the universe has aged by the amount of time dilation measured by observers in this rest frame.

For that observer in that rest frame traveling, everything else appears to be moving/aging slower for them temporarily, but in reality, for all other observers in their own rest frames not going that fast, it is only the flow rate of time for that other person/entity/obesrver only that has changed at all temporarily actually, etc.

If the observer travelled at instantaneous speeds or exceeded the speed of light, causes do not need to precede effects, the observer existed before the Big Bang and the universe which are clearly paradoxes.

So, just don't get all caught up with the whole being able to theoretically do it by just only physically exceeding the speed of light using some kind of physical matter or material that is being propelled or pushed through normal space at speeds that exceed the speed of light then? Because that might not be the only way, etc.

It therefore makes absolutely no sense to even ask the question how old is the universe when such paradoxes arise.

Well, I already know, it is around 13.7-8 billion years young/old equally everywhere, and that much is obvious, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Ha! I ask a logical question and your response is to query my sobriety?
Hilarious!

More evidence of incoherent reasoning!

Right now I think you calling me incoherent is the pot calling the kettle black, etc. Which is why I asked the question that I did, and was being 100% serious about it?

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

@SelfSim @sjastro

Ok, just answer this for me then?

Is the pictures/images that a telescope like JWST is taking right now, let's just say at 13.5 billion light years away, etc, are they also that "old"? And please just answer this with either a "Yes" or "No" answer for right now, ok.

So, "Yes or No"?

 

[SelfSim]

Right now I think you calling me incoherent is the pot calling the kettle black, etc. Which is why I asked the question that I did, and was being 100% serious about it?

Take Care/God Bless.

Achem .. (throat clearing) .. I never 'called you' incoherent.
I have concluded, on the basis of the evidence presented thus far, that the reasoning in your argument is incoherent.

 

[SelfSim]

@SelfSim @sjastro

Ok, just answer this for me then?

Is the pictures/images that a telescope like JWST is taking right now, let's just say at 13.5 billion light years away, etc, are they also that "old"?

Images of what?