I have to admit that after several times of reading I still don't really understand what your (2nd) experiment would prove.
Still, I think there is already one simple yet fundamental problem (I might be wrong though):
How would you make sure they repeat zero at the same time...
Can someone tell me who came up with this so beloved "parallel universes idea" in the first place?
Is there an actual physical foundation for that nice idea that makes it useful in any way (except sci-fi of course :biggrin: )??
Because to my eyes there is no reason why there...
It is always nice to see, that there are some people with similar attitudes!
I don't know if my ideas are of any use at all, still I have to think them through for my own sake...
(God, this is emberassing - whish I could turn that damn brain off :tongue2: )
According to my theory, the expansion of the visible universe might be an effect of "insolubility", which means, both matterforms are trying to totally separate from each other. For I believe our part of the universe to be filled by a surplus of anti-G-matter, this matterform is continously...
Thanks for reading my post! You are right about my using confusingly different terms. I'll work on that. :redface:
Though, there is some difference in our ideas:
1. My "other universe" does not consist of antimatter, but of "anti-G-matter" which is matter with negative mass/energy...
Your ideas are pleasantly similar to some of mine! :smile:
This image of the "interwoven" matter and antimatter universes is what lead me to this theory:
Maybe you might want to read it and tell me your thoughts about it. This...
I was just quoting that from the terms used in post #67.
It surely is confusing to use common mathematical expressions in such a way, verbal descriptions should have been used instead.
Coming again to that "0.9999.... is equal to 1" issue: could you provide a mathematical proof for...
Yes! That's what I am after. Because if we are not able to measure it, that means we can't find a dynamic process fast enough to compare with (of course there is also the "technical" part of creating a clock that is more likely to limitate timemeasuring. I am just thinking of the theoretical...
Great definition! I absolutely agree with you! But just this aspect of change is what brought up my question:
If there is no change to be observed in a certain interval of time, does that mean that no time has passed? If not, then how should we measure that certain period of time?
When I say "unit" I don't mean "minute", by unit I mean "smallest element" or something comparable. I just wonder, if time is really a phenomenon of absolute continuity, or if there is actually something like "steps" in time. Of course that's hard to imagine, but a movie-film looks continuous to...
I've been following this whole issue for quite a while and I read most of Lama's papers.
I think the main problem here is (as in most cases) misunderstanding.
It is very likely that I am the one who is misunderstanding everything, still I'd like to try to "mediate" between the parties...
You just state something here. Can you prove it? I am just wondering, if we can find intervals of time that are so small, that no change can be observed.
I spoke of "change" but you might also say "interaction". All I wanted to do was to choose an universally applicable word for dynamic...
You are not crazy, but your thoughtexperiment does not provide any useful aspect.
The idea of spacetime-curvature enabling "shortcuts" is not new, the question is how to create such a "rolled piece of paper" or how to do the travel...
Ahh! I think now I'm getting it! (Hooray! Enlightment!)
Still I don't understand the "colored circles"... (But I like the "forked" line-diagrams! I wonder how long it takes, until they are taught at school...)
Why are there two "versions" for the green CK2 ...