If you assume that the law of conservation of energy is accurate the energy can not be created or destroyed, therefore the total amount of energy within the whole universe is constant. From E=MC^2 we know that mass has energy, so if a person travels backwards in time then energy is transfered from one point in time to another, altering the total energy in the universe, meaning the total amount of energy in the universe is not constant, the resulting contradiction means that either the law of conservation of energy is inaccurate or reverse time travel is impossible.
Reverse TimeTravel Vs. Conservation of Energy
- Thread starter JKEY
- Start date
G
Guest
In such a case the quantity of energy in the universe at present would be regulated by a sort of spiget. The quantity of energy plus the quantity of energy in the past istant is equal to twice the amount of energy in the universe at present. In this case one could borrow energy from the vacuum of space which would be extracted from beyond centermass of a point in space.
This 'borrowed energy' would have been extracted from the past but would have to almost emediately be returned because the imbalance in forces of the universe would cause the borrowed quanta to be returned amost emediately. This could explain the results of such experiments that show,as a result of the uncertainty principle, that the borrowed energy that forms virtual photons is extracted from the past, not from an absolute vaccuum of space.
What do you think?
Edwin G. Schasteen
This 'borrowed energy' would have been extracted from the past but would have to almost emediately be returned because the imbalance in forces of the universe would cause the borrowed quanta to be returned amost emediately. This could explain the results of such experiments that show,as a result of the uncertainty principle, that the borrowed energy that forms virtual photons is extracted from the past, not from an absolute vaccuum of space.
What do you think?
Edwin G. Schasteen
G
Guest
In such a case the quantity of energy in the universe at present would be regulated by a sort of spiget. The quantity of energy plus the quantity of energy in the past istant is equal to twice the amount of energy in the universe at present. In this case one could borrow energy from the vacuum of space which would be extracted from beyond centermass of a point in space.
This 'borrowed energy' would have been extracted from the past but would have to almost emediately be returned because the imbalance in forces of the universe would cause the borrowed quanta to be returned almost emediately. This could explain the results of such experiments that show,as a result of the uncertainty principle, that the borrowed energy that forms virtual photons is extracted from the past, not from an absolute vaccuum of space.
What do you think?
Edwin G. Schasteen
This 'borrowed energy' would have been extracted from the past but would have to almost emediately be returned because the imbalance in forces of the universe would cause the borrowed quanta to be returned almost emediately. This could explain the results of such experiments that show,as a result of the uncertainty principle, that the borrowed energy that forms virtual photons is extracted from the past, not from an absolute vaccuum of space.
What do you think?
Edwin G. Schasteen
G
Guest
In such a case the quantity of energy in the universe at present would be regulated by a sort of spiget. The quantity of energy plus the quantity of energy in the past istant is equal to twice the amount of energy in the universe at present. In this case one could borrow energy from the vacuum of space which would be extracted from beyond centermass of a point in space.
This 'borrowed energy' would have been extracted from the past but would have to almost emediately be returned because the imbalance in forces of the universe would cause the borrowed quanta to be returned almost emediately. This could explain the results of such experiments that show,as a result of the uncertainty principle, that the borrowed energy that forms virtual photons is extracted from the past, not from an absolute vaccuum of space.
What do you think?
Edwin G. Schasteen
This 'borrowed energy' would have been extracted from the past but would have to almost emediately be returned because the imbalance in forces of the universe would cause the borrowed quanta to be returned almost emediately. This could explain the results of such experiments that show,as a result of the uncertainty principle, that the borrowed energy that forms virtual photons is extracted from the past, not from an absolute vaccuum of space.
What do you think?
Edwin G. Schasteen
In such a case the quantity of energy in the universe at present would be regulated by a sort of spiget. The quantity of energy plus the quantity of energy in the past istant is equal to twice the amount of energy in the universe at present. In this case one could borrow energy from the vacuum of space which would be extracted from beyond centermass of a point in space.
This 'borrowed energy' would have been extracted from the past but would have to almost emediately be returned because the imbalance in forces of the universe would cause the borrowed quanta to be returned almost emediately. This could explain the results of such experiments that show,as a result of the uncertainty principle, that the borrowed energy that forms virtual photons is extracted from the past, not from an absolute vaccuum of space.
What do you think?
Edwin G. Schasteen
This 'borrowed energy' would have been extracted from the past but would have to almost emediately be returned because the imbalance in forces of the universe would cause the borrowed quanta to be returned almost emediately. This could explain the results of such experiments that show,as a result of the uncertainty principle, that the borrowed energy that forms virtual photons is extracted from the past, not from an absolute vaccuum of space.
What do you think?
Edwin G. Schasteen
HimaliYeti
Temporal Novice
You are right, When we are dealing with time travel, conservation of energy, this theory doesn't work anymore.
conservation of energy is only true in a close system and we can not put Universe in a close system, at least we don't have any proof.
HY
conservation of energy is only true in a close system and we can not put Universe in a close system, at least we don't have any proof.
HY
Fredric Argyle
Temporal Novice
I the entire universe, ie. everything that exists, is not a closed system then what is?
A closed system is merely a section of the universe, if the law of conservation of energy did not apply in the universe it is unlikely to apply in the closed system.
The only differences between the closed system and the universe is the larger scale, and large number of variables that can not all be all found using current technology.
The only differences between the closed system and the universe is the larger scale, and large number of variables that can not all be all found using current technology.
G
Guest
Energy is not conserved at the quantum level.
G
Guest
Sorry about the additional two redundant posts at the beggining of this string. I hit the transmitt key and the post posted three times instead of once. Strange computer glitches I guess. But good enough for government work.
I was consider what kind of method that could be used to contain such an unpredictable quantity of energy and it came to me that there might be more to the temperal dynamics of the constantly changing pattern of energy quantity. I consider that a quantity strength of the field might be written as a quantity Q. Now the density of that quantity Q starts at infinity and decreases to 0 as the quatity Q propagates outward to infinity. As in an electro-magnetic field, for instance, the field decreases to the inverted square of the radius, which starts at the center of the field. Now as we have pointed out in previous posts, the strength of the field at the center mass is infinite and is where the quantity of that field enters this world line. Now the density of that field are roughly proportionate at all points along the circumferance because the length r is equal from the center of the field at all points within a given circumferance. Now if we were to condsider the split in the field where the circumferance is broken, the radius of the field is discontinuus along the circumferance causing the radius r at the break to extend to the edge of the universe. Now the strength of the field at this break would be undefined on acount that the radius is no longer connected with the circumferance to determine the strength of the field at that circumferance. At the break of the field we have a radius with no circumferance, and therefore the strength of the field at the break is infinite on acount that the radius is occupying a region of zero circumerance. When the circumferance is zero the radius is defined as 1/r^2, where r^2=0 and 1/0=infinity. Now the only place that this occurrs in the field that is not broken along the circumferance is at the center of the field where the radius of the field is zero and the circumferance is also zero. (Although this might be arguable.)By breaking the field at some piont along the circumferance we have created a region where the circumferance ends so the circumferance looks like a broken ring. So the circumferance has, at this point, a definate beggining, and an definite end. and the radius is conected to all the points along the ring. Now to validate my point above where I sayed that the strength of the field would be infinite and not zero at the break, I point out that the radius still intersects all points along the circumferance of the field including the break of the field where the circumferance does not occupy(exist). Mathemiticians might define a radius that exists in a region without a circumferance as one of the following, some of the following, or all of the following: An existing radius without an existing circumferance is undefined.
An existing radius without a circumferance is infinite/or zero.
An existing radius without a circumferance is both temperally and spacially random.
An existing radius without a circumferance is both temperally and spacially omnipresent or semi-omnipresent and yet to be determined.
What does everyone think? Does this add up?
Regards,
Edwin G. Schasteen
I was consider what kind of method that could be used to contain such an unpredictable quantity of energy and it came to me that there might be more to the temperal dynamics of the constantly changing pattern of energy quantity. I consider that a quantity strength of the field might be written as a quantity Q. Now the density of that quantity Q starts at infinity and decreases to 0 as the quatity Q propagates outward to infinity. As in an electro-magnetic field, for instance, the field decreases to the inverted square of the radius, which starts at the center of the field. Now as we have pointed out in previous posts, the strength of the field at the center mass is infinite and is where the quantity of that field enters this world line. Now the density of that field are roughly proportionate at all points along the circumferance because the length r is equal from the center of the field at all points within a given circumferance. Now if we were to condsider the split in the field where the circumferance is broken, the radius of the field is discontinuus along the circumferance causing the radius r at the break to extend to the edge of the universe. Now the strength of the field at this break would be undefined on acount that the radius is no longer connected with the circumferance to determine the strength of the field at that circumferance. At the break of the field we have a radius with no circumferance, and therefore the strength of the field at the break is infinite on acount that the radius is occupying a region of zero circumerance. When the circumferance is zero the radius is defined as 1/r^2, where r^2=0 and 1/0=infinity. Now the only place that this occurrs in the field that is not broken along the circumferance is at the center of the field where the radius of the field is zero and the circumferance is also zero. (Although this might be arguable.)By breaking the field at some piont along the circumferance we have created a region where the circumferance ends so the circumferance looks like a broken ring. So the circumferance has, at this point, a definate beggining, and an definite end. and the radius is conected to all the points along the ring. Now to validate my point above where I sayed that the strength of the field would be infinite and not zero at the break, I point out that the radius still intersects all points along the circumferance of the field including the break of the field where the circumferance does not occupy(exist). Mathemiticians might define a radius that exists in a region without a circumferance as one of the following, some of the following, or all of the following: An existing radius without an existing circumferance is undefined.
An existing radius without a circumferance is infinite/or zero.
An existing radius without a circumferance is both temperally and spacially random.
An existing radius without a circumferance is both temperally and spacially omnipresent or semi-omnipresent and yet to be determined.
What does everyone think? Does this add up?
Regards,
Edwin G. Schasteen
spacemanpabs
Temporal Novice
first of all , u said that we assume that conservation of energy is true, well there is no proof for it
any way if it is true, then travelling in time wont matter much , because travelling in time is just like travelling through space and hence we are staying in this universe only , what do u think,
luv ya
any way if it is true, then travelling in time wont matter much , because travelling in time is just like travelling through space and hence we are staying in this universe only , what do u think,
luv ya
G
Guest
Schasteen, very good point. But what would happen to the borrowed energy? In addition, this process of borrowing energy and replacing the energy within the past may have to occurr instantaneously to balance the constant energy. How would that be done?
G
Guest
In order to answer this we must first examine the affects of a non instantaneous transtemperal displacement of our two energies.
In such a case that the transfer of energy into the past is not instantaneous with respect to the energy being borrowed from the vaccuum, we would have a sort of temperal frame dragging affect which would be defined as how long of a delay period there is between the transfer.
For instance if it takes one billionth of a second for the energy in the present to displace the energy in the past that is borrowed from the vaccuum in the present, the the amount of temperal delay is proportionate to one billionth of a second.
Also this delay generates more of a quantity of energy to exist then there was originally by causing this energy to occur more then once with respect to the rest of the universe. The amount of gained energy is also proportionate to the period length of the temperal delay.
So in the previous example where there is a one billionth of a second delay temperally, we have the partical accurring one and one billionth while all other quantities in the universe accuring in the same time only accur once.
Basically I am defining the amount of energy in a mass as a quantity of energy accurring over a given period of time. If every second the partical accurrs once, then the amount of energy that is contained in this mass is one.
If in the first second the energy accurs once, and then in the next second the energy accurs twice, then the amount mass existing there is doubled. However since the amount of energy is doubled within same space the density of the mass would be infinite, because anytime you have two masses of equal proportion occupying the same space at the same time, then the density of that mass is infinite.
The quantity of that mass is also infinite because each of the two masses are composed of an infinite number of half values between the outer circumferances of the masses and each of the masses centers.
So when we cause each of these masses to occupy the same space, all of the half values are inphase and add together so that each of the infinite number of halves adds together. And anytime you ad a half to another half you get one.
Now in this case we are adding an infinite number of halves to an infinite number of halves all at once. So an infinite number of halves added to an infinite number of halves simultanseously gives us an infinite number of ones which adds up to infinity!
So, in conclusion, one does not need an infinite quantity of mass or energy to creat an infinite amount of energy or mass, all one needs to create an infinite amount of mass is two masses period.
Since there is an infinite number of halves in any amount of energy or mass regardless of that masses size or that energies strength.
I was only using two masses of equal proportion to describe this concept in a way that is easier to grasp. It is easier to percieve this concept by envisioning two masses of equal size being compressed to the same space to increase in density an volume to infinity, then to try to imagine an electron and the planet jupiter being crammed into the same space in order to add to infinity.
The math does, however, add up the same. For an electron has an infinite number of mass values between it's mass value and zero mass, and so does jupiter, so if you add all of these half values together in the same space, you will have an infinite number of halves added to an infinite number of halves.
One must remember that a mass does not reach an infinite density until that mass is compressed to an infinitely small point. A black hole is formed when the mass is compressed to a size such that the gravitiational pull at the surface of that mass increases a strength such that an object would have to travel at the velocity of light to escape this pull.
However the gravitational pull is not infinite at this point, which is known as the event horizon, but the mass continues to crush to an infinitely small point and the gravitational pull between the event horizon and the center mass to which the mass is compressed rises to infinity as the mass is compressed to a zero point.
A mass that is compressed to a zero point is known as a singularity. The radius between this singularity and the event horizon is known as the schwartzfield radius and is defined by the following mathematical equation: SR=GM/(c^2) where SR is the schwartzfield radius, G is the gravitational constant, M is the amount of energy contained in the mass, and c is the speed of light in a vaccuum.
So if we were to calculate the schwartzdfield radius of an energy in the form of energy we would first have to convert the value of mass into it's energy equivalant value by using Einstiens equation for converting static energy value into kenetic energy value...e=mc^2.
So the energy of a mass is equal to e/(c^2) in which case tofind the swartzfield radius we replace the value of "M" in the equation "GM/(c^2)" with e/(c^2) and we get
G(e/c^2)/(c^2).
I will finish later, but I must go now for I have allot of work to do. As soon as I can I will finish this post to explain how an instantaneous tranfer of energy into the past with the present would accur.
Best Regards,
Edwin G. Schasteen
TAP-TEN Research
627 H. St. Ste A279
San Diego CA. 91910
(858) 860-6400 Ext
578
(619) 387-7300 Ext:4312
(Vosstech Industries)
In such a case that the transfer of energy into the past is not instantaneous with respect to the energy being borrowed from the vaccuum, we would have a sort of temperal frame dragging affect which would be defined as how long of a delay period there is between the transfer.
For instance if it takes one billionth of a second for the energy in the present to displace the energy in the past that is borrowed from the vaccuum in the present, the the amount of temperal delay is proportionate to one billionth of a second.
Also this delay generates more of a quantity of energy to exist then there was originally by causing this energy to occur more then once with respect to the rest of the universe. The amount of gained energy is also proportionate to the period length of the temperal delay.
So in the previous example where there is a one billionth of a second delay temperally, we have the partical accurring one and one billionth while all other quantities in the universe accuring in the same time only accur once.
Basically I am defining the amount of energy in a mass as a quantity of energy accurring over a given period of time. If every second the partical accurrs once, then the amount of energy that is contained in this mass is one.
If in the first second the energy accurs once, and then in the next second the energy accurs twice, then the amount mass existing there is doubled. However since the amount of energy is doubled within same space the density of the mass would be infinite, because anytime you have two masses of equal proportion occupying the same space at the same time, then the density of that mass is infinite.
The quantity of that mass is also infinite because each of the two masses are composed of an infinite number of half values between the outer circumferances of the masses and each of the masses centers.
So when we cause each of these masses to occupy the same space, all of the half values are inphase and add together so that each of the infinite number of halves adds together. And anytime you ad a half to another half you get one.
Now in this case we are adding an infinite number of halves to an infinite number of halves all at once. So an infinite number of halves added to an infinite number of halves simultanseously gives us an infinite number of ones which adds up to infinity!
So, in conclusion, one does not need an infinite quantity of mass or energy to creat an infinite amount of energy or mass, all one needs to create an infinite amount of mass is two masses period.
Since there is an infinite number of halves in any amount of energy or mass regardless of that masses size or that energies strength.
I was only using two masses of equal proportion to describe this concept in a way that is easier to grasp. It is easier to percieve this concept by envisioning two masses of equal size being compressed to the same space to increase in density an volume to infinity, then to try to imagine an electron and the planet jupiter being crammed into the same space in order to add to infinity.
The math does, however, add up the same. For an electron has an infinite number of mass values between it's mass value and zero mass, and so does jupiter, so if you add all of these half values together in the same space, you will have an infinite number of halves added to an infinite number of halves.
One must remember that a mass does not reach an infinite density until that mass is compressed to an infinitely small point. A black hole is formed when the mass is compressed to a size such that the gravitiational pull at the surface of that mass increases a strength such that an object would have to travel at the velocity of light to escape this pull.
However the gravitational pull is not infinite at this point, which is known as the event horizon, but the mass continues to crush to an infinitely small point and the gravitational pull between the event horizon and the center mass to which the mass is compressed rises to infinity as the mass is compressed to a zero point.
A mass that is compressed to a zero point is known as a singularity. The radius between this singularity and the event horizon is known as the schwartzfield radius and is defined by the following mathematical equation: SR=GM/(c^2) where SR is the schwartzfield radius, G is the gravitational constant, M is the amount of energy contained in the mass, and c is the speed of light in a vaccuum.
So if we were to calculate the schwartzdfield radius of an energy in the form of energy we would first have to convert the value of mass into it's energy equivalant value by using Einstiens equation for converting static energy value into kenetic energy value...e=mc^2.
So the energy of a mass is equal to e/(c^2) in which case tofind the swartzfield radius we replace the value of "M" in the equation "GM/(c^2)" with e/(c^2) and we get
G(e/c^2)/(c^2).
I will finish later, but I must go now for I have allot of work to do. As soon as I can I will finish this post to explain how an instantaneous tranfer of energy into the past with the present would accur.
Best Regards,
Edwin G. Schasteen
TAP-TEN Research
627 H. St. Ste A279
San Diego CA. 91910
(858) 860-6400 Ext
(619) 387-7300 Ext:4312
(Vosstech Industries)
G
Guest
Is there any prove to assure incapacity to the past?
G
Guest
Dear Relativity,
In reality,
I believe that the replacement of energy into the past would probably accur in descreat increments. I would believe that any transfer into the past through a singularity would be instantaneous on account of the equal opposite time factor associated with superluminal motions mapped to time periods. So to take two steps forward in two seconds with one second being a negative time you would have the following: one positive step forward in one second+one more positive step forward in negative one second=two positive steps instantaneously. This is because the motion remains positive but you subtract, or counteract the period of time taken to make the first step forward by the negative time of the second step which adds up to two steps over a period of zero seconds or in a single instant(infinitely short period of time). So infinity is the sum of two positive masses having occupying opposing time dimensions in phase. This kind of action also counteracts the phase enirely thus by causing all points in time that are seperate to merge at a single point in time.
Basically, we can provide mathematical evidence to support the idea that zero is really infinity and that anything that is infinitely small is composed of an infinite number of halves added together to make an infinite number of ones.
Also we provide mathematical evidence to support the view that all parallel lines merge at infinity. Based on this supporting mathematical evidence we can additional evidence to support the view that a circle with an infinitely large circumferance is mathematically as dimensionless as a circle with an infinitely small radius. Based on this additional evidence we can provide arguements to support the view that a circle with an infinitely large radius mathematically no different then a circle with an infinitely small radius. Zero times infinity=finite one, and finite one times infinity = infinity, and infinity=zero. If a quantity starts at zero replicates an infinite number of times to increase, or shall I say, decrease to a quantity value of one, and this one replicates an infinite number of times to increase to infinity all over a period of three seconds, we have an infinite quantity doing an infinite action to decrease to a finite quantity which does an infinite action to increase to an infinite quantity that appears to be infinitely larger then the first infinity until one does the said mathematical analysis. So what is happening? The answer is this, A mass compressed to a point is infinite when this mass spreads over a region of space greater then a point, the mass becomes finity because only a portion of that infinite mass is occupying the space in descreat quantums. When the energy increases to an infinitely large quantity with a homgogeneous constant energy density, the energy entire infinite volume of energy contained in the point has been transfered to the present.
When a wave begins it starts at the centermass of a medium and spreads outward. When the number of waves increases all the waves have the same energy amplitude as long as the impedance of the medium is zero. Now the wave ages and extends into the past as the present becomes the future. Now a person might ascertain that if one goes back into the past to a time before that wave was started that the wave would be non existant amplitude. Based on this arguement it is argued that one can only use a Kerr singularity to back in time to any period of time that is between the birth of the Kerr singularity and the present.
I dissagree with this arguement on the following arguemnent: to go back in time to a point in the past before a wave is sayed to have started, that wave will have an amplitude existing as energy that led up to cause that wave to initiate.
Thus the age of any wave can be traced back to an infinite period in the past which defines the begining of the universe. We have mathematical evidence to support the view that an infinite distance is within a finite distance, and that infinity is within a finite distance based on the observation that motion accurs in finite medium.
So a finite medium has an edge and beyond the edge where no finite medium exists, is the only other kind of existant medium, that is, infinity. So it takes a finite time to travel a finite distance to reach the edge of a finite universe inorder to travel out into the realm or medium of infinity or infinite space-time.
An example of such an infinity that lies within a finite distance is the infinitely small point at the center of any field, force, mass, or space. Since we have mathematical evidence to support the view that zero is infinity in the large and infinity in the large is zero, we so postulate that this is the edge of the finite universe. But to go past it will not result in the person going off into infinite space, but instead aquiring a finite negative spacial-and time value. The energy value remaind positive but occupies a negative time-space.
The possible conclusions to all of this is that:
1) the quantity of an energy is undefined.
2) the quantity of an energy is determined by the quantity of space the energy occupies.
3) the point in time that the energy is localized to and it's direction of temperal travel is determined by both the quantity of space-time and the polarity value of the space-time that the energy occupies.
4)The quantity of an energy is infinite, and the seen value of this energy is a quantity of finite value. The rest of the energy is spread across time to the beginning of the universe which is an infinite period back from all points in time. Since zero time is infinite time, since any definition having a value of zero whether it be time or energy is infinite, because the zero rule applies for all measurements and all quantities and types of quantities that have the value zero are infinite.
5) The definition of finite quanity is all points within a region of time that vary inversely with an upper an lower limit of infinity(type zero infinity, and type infinitely large infinity)
6) An infinite number of zeros equals one and an infinite number of ones equals infinity. Zero is to one as one is to infinity. Therefore one is equal to infinity.
7) The true value of zero is defined at infinity, and can only be viewed from infinity. For being infinitely large a finite value appears to be zero in size, and appears to be zero. However when this finite values is seen from infinity to be compressed to an infinitely small point the value of this mass rises to infinity when seen from infinity but appears to shrink to an infinitely small point when viewed from the finite.
We have mathematical evidence that supports the view that an illusion is solid and true. Based on this evidence and the previously stated point#7 we support the view that a viewed phnemenon is as it appears and therefore, needs no interpretation.
An finite vallue appearing to shrink to infinity that rises to infinity when viewed from infinity states that any action or change that accurs within finite is additive and conserved.
I will post all the mathematical proof's that I have spoken of in a later post.
Best Regards,
Edwin G. Schasteen
In reality,
I believe that the replacement of energy into the past would probably accur in descreat increments. I would believe that any transfer into the past through a singularity would be instantaneous on account of the equal opposite time factor associated with superluminal motions mapped to time periods. So to take two steps forward in two seconds with one second being a negative time you would have the following: one positive step forward in one second+one more positive step forward in negative one second=two positive steps instantaneously. This is because the motion remains positive but you subtract, or counteract the period of time taken to make the first step forward by the negative time of the second step which adds up to two steps over a period of zero seconds or in a single instant(infinitely short period of time). So infinity is the sum of two positive masses having occupying opposing time dimensions in phase. This kind of action also counteracts the phase enirely thus by causing all points in time that are seperate to merge at a single point in time.
Basically, we can provide mathematical evidence to support the idea that zero is really infinity and that anything that is infinitely small is composed of an infinite number of halves added together to make an infinite number of ones.
Also we provide mathematical evidence to support the view that all parallel lines merge at infinity. Based on this supporting mathematical evidence we can additional evidence to support the view that a circle with an infinitely large circumferance is mathematically as dimensionless as a circle with an infinitely small radius. Based on this additional evidence we can provide arguements to support the view that a circle with an infinitely large radius mathematically no different then a circle with an infinitely small radius. Zero times infinity=finite one, and finite one times infinity = infinity, and infinity=zero. If a quantity starts at zero replicates an infinite number of times to increase, or shall I say, decrease to a quantity value of one, and this one replicates an infinite number of times to increase to infinity all over a period of three seconds, we have an infinite quantity doing an infinite action to decrease to a finite quantity which does an infinite action to increase to an infinite quantity that appears to be infinitely larger then the first infinity until one does the said mathematical analysis. So what is happening? The answer is this, A mass compressed to a point is infinite when this mass spreads over a region of space greater then a point, the mass becomes finity because only a portion of that infinite mass is occupying the space in descreat quantums. When the energy increases to an infinitely large quantity with a homgogeneous constant energy density, the energy entire infinite volume of energy contained in the point has been transfered to the present.
When a wave begins it starts at the centermass of a medium and spreads outward. When the number of waves increases all the waves have the same energy amplitude as long as the impedance of the medium is zero. Now the wave ages and extends into the past as the present becomes the future. Now a person might ascertain that if one goes back into the past to a time before that wave was started that the wave would be non existant amplitude. Based on this arguement it is argued that one can only use a Kerr singularity to back in time to any period of time that is between the birth of the Kerr singularity and the present.
I dissagree with this arguement on the following arguemnent: to go back in time to a point in the past before a wave is sayed to have started, that wave will have an amplitude existing as energy that led up to cause that wave to initiate.
Thus the age of any wave can be traced back to an infinite period in the past which defines the begining of the universe. We have mathematical evidence to support the view that an infinite distance is within a finite distance, and that infinity is within a finite distance based on the observation that motion accurs in finite medium.
So a finite medium has an edge and beyond the edge where no finite medium exists, is the only other kind of existant medium, that is, infinity. So it takes a finite time to travel a finite distance to reach the edge of a finite universe inorder to travel out into the realm or medium of infinity or infinite space-time.
An example of such an infinity that lies within a finite distance is the infinitely small point at the center of any field, force, mass, or space. Since we have mathematical evidence to support the view that zero is infinity in the large and infinity in the large is zero, we so postulate that this is the edge of the finite universe. But to go past it will not result in the person going off into infinite space, but instead aquiring a finite negative spacial-and time value. The energy value remaind positive but occupies a negative time-space.
The possible conclusions to all of this is that:
1) the quantity of an energy is undefined.
2) the quantity of an energy is determined by the quantity of space the energy occupies.
3) the point in time that the energy is localized to and it's direction of temperal travel is determined by both the quantity of space-time and the polarity value of the space-time that the energy occupies.
4)The quantity of an energy is infinite, and the seen value of this energy is a quantity of finite value. The rest of the energy is spread across time to the beginning of the universe which is an infinite period back from all points in time. Since zero time is infinite time, since any definition having a value of zero whether it be time or energy is infinite, because the zero rule applies for all measurements and all quantities and types of quantities that have the value zero are infinite.
5) The definition of finite quanity is all points within a region of time that vary inversely with an upper an lower limit of infinity(type zero infinity, and type infinitely large infinity)
6) An infinite number of zeros equals one and an infinite number of ones equals infinity. Zero is to one as one is to infinity. Therefore one is equal to infinity.
7) The true value of zero is defined at infinity, and can only be viewed from infinity. For being infinitely large a finite value appears to be zero in size, and appears to be zero. However when this finite values is seen from infinity to be compressed to an infinitely small point the value of this mass rises to infinity when seen from infinity but appears to shrink to an infinitely small point when viewed from the finite.
We have mathematical evidence that supports the view that an illusion is solid and true. Based on this evidence and the previously stated point#7 we support the view that a viewed phnemenon is as it appears and therefore, needs no interpretation.
An finite vallue appearing to shrink to infinity that rises to infinity when viewed from infinity states that any action or change that accurs within finite is additive and conserved.
I will post all the mathematical proof's that I have spoken of in a later post.
Best Regards,
Edwin G. Schasteen