Conundrum: Infinite past & Clock

[Speakpigeon]

With a past-eternal, perpetual motion clock it should (eventually) become quite easy to predict what time the clock dial would read at any future instant.
(Think Groundhog Day movie)

Sorry, you will have to explain a bit because I'm not a cinema goer and I've too sketchy an idea as to what the film you're talking about would show.
EB

Groundhog Day meme comes partly from a movie where dude (Bill Murray) wakes up to the same day over and over again and gradually learns that he can game the system and each repeated day he does things a little bit better and better to further his aims.

Similar movie themes;
50 First Dates (Adam Sandler, Drew Barrynore)
Sliding Doors (Gwenyth Paltrow)
Pretty much all your time travel genre stuff - Back To The Future etc.

An eternal observer looking at a perpetual motion, past-eternal clock would eventually be able to (omnisciently) predict the clocks behaviour.

I don't see the relevance.

No one needs to time-travel to predict what any clock would say. You only need to look at it for long enough. That's it. If it wasn't enough, then it wouldn't be any kind of clock.

More to the point, I was asking what time a clock would tell that would have been working for the entire infinite past. You haven't answered and your answer doesn't allow me to deduce any answer.

Maybe I misunderstood. In this case, please explain again. This time, as if to an idiot. If you can.
EB

 

[Lion IRC]

The clock - like the hamster wheel - would keep going and the time it shows would depend on whenever you looked at it.
Remember - we agree the hands on the clock didnt 'start' at midnight or any particular position.
They've been going round and round forever - in saecula saeculorum

The clock is traversing infinity and there is no (metaphysical) impediment to it existing of it being observed.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I understand all that.

My question was as to why the clock should show any particular reading at all, and if so, then which one.

When you read the time on an ordinary clock, the reading is a direct result of what the reading was the last time you looked at it, and ultimately at what time you set the clock when you started it initially (and, obviously, on it's imprecision and drift, which I will ignore here). There's no mystery and our expectations are usually met.

With a clock that's supposed to have always been going on throughout an infinite past, there's no starting point, and it was never set to being with. And even if there was, without a finite time span between setting and reading, there's no good reason that the clock should read one particular value rather than any other.

And yet we do expect that it would. It's not a question the we don't know in a thought experiment what time it would display. It's that there's not one good reason that it should display any one particular reading rather than any other, and this even though we expect that it has to display one.

That's a contradiction in our different expectations. Something has to give, I think.
EB

 

[beero1000]

There would still be no infinite timespans because the length of a span of time is defined to be the difference between two times. Distance has exactly the same 'difficulty', the universe could be infinite in extent, but in order to speak sensibly about distance, we must talk about the distance between two points, which is always finite. The notion of an infinite universe (in extent or in time) is the notion of unboundedness - that there are points farther apart than any number we can name.

Sure.

Hence the difficulty in deciding what time a clock that would have always been there would display.

There is no more difficulty in deciding what time a clock that would not have always been there would display. It's relative to what it displayed at some other point in time, same as for any other clock.

____________________

I guess the inherent limitation with our mathematical concept of infinity is that it is broadly speaking algorithmic in nature. Infinity is conceived by mathematicians as the purely notional limit of an unbounded series of terms. In this sense, infinity is not thought of, conceived, as anything like an ontological reality.

Not really. That idea is outdated by 100+ years, and persists because the first (and usually only) time most people see infinity in math classes is usually in the context of precalculus or calculus, where it is used as a shorthand for a version of the epsilon-delta limit definitions, which don't formally require the infinite at all. Mathematicians actually see being 'infinite' as a property of objects, where the infinite numbers are sizes (or orders) like any other.

I'm pleased to hear that.

It would be like saying the concept of 3 is algorithmic because it is the algorithmic notion of the counting process 1, 2, 3. Technically, you could view it that way, but that's a little stilted, and not how most people think of the property '3'.

Sure, concerning how most people conceive of ordinary numbers, I agree. But you would have to produce a better argument to convince me that most people don't think of an infinite future the way I described it.

Most people have no background in understanding infinity and rely on naive intuitions or half-remembered hand-waving explanations from freshman year math class. You specifically made a claim about mathematicians that wasn't true and I pointed that out.

The idea of an infinite future doesn't require any new notion of the infinite because we think of the future as something happening one step at a time, much like we can only think of an unbounded series of terms one step at a time, one term coming after another. And we get away with it by imagining that we could continue considering the following terms of the series, one after the other, one at a time, ad infinitum, without ever getting to infinity itself.

Now, the idea of an infinite past seems something different altogether in this respect. The concept of the past as something already done with, seems to require that in the case of an infinite past, infinity has already happened, and therefore that infinity is a full-blown ontological reality, not just a pure abstraction. At any moment in time, including now, there's been an infinity of seconds, and an infinity of millennia, that have already gone by.

Back to the first comment: gone by from when? From any point I choose to measure, only a finite amount of time has passed until now. Sure, I can keep choosing times earlier and earlier, and I will get more and more of the past, but at no point will I see an infinite amount of time go by between two points in time. It's the same as distance. If the universe is infinite in extent, I still wouldn't say that 'an infinity of meters have been traveled'. From where? By what?

No. You're just thinking in terms of using any finite system of measure. Sure, in practice, we can only measure time, and distances, between two given points. But I'm trying to figure out how we would do it if we were not ourselves finite beings.

I'm sure you could try, too.

It's also ironic that you should be now going back to the kind of algorithmic process that you just criticised me for describing as basic in maths, and that you were pleased to say that mathematicians had long moved beyond.

It's generally considered pedagogically polite to use terminology that your audience will understand. You seem to be stuck in an 18th century conception of what infinity is, so I wasn't going to try and get you to understand by jumping straight into the modern formalisms.

If you'd prefer it that way, I could. It doesn't matter anyway.

Theorem: Any metric measure of time that allows an infinite span of time is decomposable into a disjoint union of time 'epochs', where a timespan is finite if and only if it lies within an epoch.

If "mathematicians actually see being 'infinite' as a property of objects", then there should be no difficulty whatsoever for you to consider, obviously in the abstract, the problem of what kind of clock could conceivably have counted time for the whole duration of an infinite past.

Well yes, but I am sick of trying to explain set theory to people who don't care to listen. I've already resolved to stop getting sucked into these depressing conversations, but everyone can see how well that's worked so far.

This may be something of a problem to get our heads around it. Think of a simple clock. If we try to assume that such a simple clock had always existed, what time would this clock display right now? I'm sure we're all going to be stuck here, like, forever.

Still, I trust this forum packs more brain power within fewer skulls than the current U.S. administration, so despite my own personal limitations in not seeing any way out of this conundrum, I will wait to see if someone else here can come up with an imaginative solution, hopefully one not involving the impossibility of having a clock at every moment in the past.

I'll be waiting for your answers. The clock is already ticking. Don't make me wait till the end of time.
EB

It would display an hour later than whatever it was displaying an hour ago, etc. If I have a simple clock (one that always existed or not), what time would it display right now? The question is clearly relative to what the clock displayed at some other point in time, no matter how long the clock has existed.

Not good enough for me, I'm afraid.

Still, I now have the answer.

Just take a look at my previous post and tell me what's wrong with my clock.
EB

Yeah, OK.

 

[Kharakov]

a) if time has been around forever, there is a timespan with an unbounded past, unless you specifically define spans as finite quantities. Spans can be infinite, as far as I know.

Obviously, it remains true that the time span between any two points in time is finite.

Unless what you call a time span (in your single thread of existence) is actually multidimensional. I think GR can be interpreted in such a way that each point in spacetime has a unique timeline that splits off from the rest at every moment. So there is an infinite volume of time in every finite timespan, since an infinite amount of timelines are created each moment.

I guess the inherent limitation with our mathematical concept of infinity is that it is broadly speaking algorithmic in nature.

Or broadly speaking geometric, when we describe curves, or the number of faces of an infinihedron (you know, a sphere...), or number of sides of an infinigon (a circle).

In fact, it's directly built into smooth nature all around us, and there is nothing more natural than infinity, so it's really hard to avoid it when describing nature with mathematics. Pi, e, all things transcendental are required to transcend finite math so that math can be used to describe all of nature's infinities.

Without infinity, math cannot describe nature with anything resembling precision, because of the infinite amount of infinities we encounter in nature daily.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Sure.

Hence the difficulty in deciding what time a clock that would have always been there would display.

There is no more difficulty in deciding what time a clock that would not have always been there would display. It's relative to what it displayed at some other point in time, same as for any other clock.

My question was as to why the clock should show any particular reading at all, and if so, then which one.

When you read the time on an ordinary clock, the reading is a direct result of what the reading was the last time you looked at it, and ultimately at what time you set the clock when you started it initially (and, obviously, on it's imprecision and drift, which I will ignore here). There's no mystery and our expectations are usually met.

With a clock that's supposed to have always been going on throughout an infinite past, there's no starting point, and it was never set to being with. And even if there was, without a finite time span between setting and reading, there's no good reason that the clock should read one particular value rather than any other.

And yet we do expect that it would. It's not a question the we don't know in a thought experiment what time it would display. It's that there's not one good reason that it should display any one particular reading rather than any other, and this even though we expect that it has to display one.

That's a contradiction in our different expectations. Something has to give, I think.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

a) if time has been around forever, there is a timespan with an unbounded past, unless you specifically define spans as finite quantities. Spans can be infinite, as far as I know.

Obviously, it remains true that the time span between any two points in time is finite.

Unless what you call a time span (in your single thread of existence) is actually multidimensional. I think GR can be interpreted in such a way that each point in spacetime has a unique timeline that splits off from the rest at every moment. So there is an infinite volume of time in every finite timespan, since an infinite amount of timelines are created each moment.

I guess the inherent limitation with our mathematical concept of infinity is that it is broadly speaking algorithmic in nature.

Or broadly speaking geometric, when we describe curves, or the number of faces of an infinihedron (you know, a sphere...), or number of sides of an infinigon (a circle).

In fact, it's directly built into smooth nature all around us, and there is nothing more natural than infinity, so it's really hard to avoid it when describing nature with mathematics. Pi, e, all things transcendental are required to transcend finite math so that math can be used to describe all of nature's infinities.

Without infinity, math cannot describe nature with anything resembling precision, because of the infinite amount of infinities we encounter in nature daily.

I'm all for infinite time spans. I would have more time to think about the infinite.

Now you'll have to explain to me how General Relativity could relevant to my question: Why the clock should show any particular reading at all, and if so, then which one?

When you read the time on an ordinary clock, the reading is a direct result of what the reading was the last time you looked at it, and ultimately at what time you set the clock when you started it initially (and, obviously, on it's imprecision and drift, which I will ignore here). There's no mystery and our expectations are usually met.

With a clock that's supposed to have always been going on throughout an infinite past, there's no starting point, and it was never set to being with. And even if there was, without a finite time span between setting and reading, there's no good reason that the clock should read one particular value rather than any other.

And yet we do expect that it would. It's not a question the we don't know in a thought experiment what time it would display. It's that there's not one good reason that it should display any one particular reading rather than any other, and this even though we expect that it has to display one.

That's a contradiction in our different expectations. Something has to give, I think.

Right now I don't think General Relativity has much relevance to that.

But maybe I'm wrong. So, please explain.
EB

 

[Juma]

because it seemed logical to assume a clock that increased its value by one for each tick..,
but you can assume any rule you want, it doesnt really matter.

Sorry, you don't seem to understand, at all.

I guess there's nothing I can do here. I don't know which of your English or your wit isn't up to the job.

I leave it to you to decide whether you try again or not.
EB

Yeah right.. Release you inner moron on me...
Have it never occurred to you that maybe, just maybe it is you that doesnt get it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

because it seemed logical to assume a clock that increased its value by one for each tick..,
but you can assume any rule you want, it doesnt really matter.

Sorry, you don't seem to understand, at all.

I guess there's nothing I can do here. I don't know which of your English or your wit isn't up to the job.

I leave it to you to decide whether you try again or not.
EB

Yeah right.. Release you inner moron on me...

Your English at least is getting better!

Have it never occurred to you that maybe, just maybe it is you that doesnt get it.

My question was as to why the clock should show any particular reading at all, and if so, then which one.

When you read the time on an ordinary clock, the reading is a direct result of what the reading was the last time you looked at it, and ultimately at what time you set the clock when you started it initially (and, obviously, on it's imprecision and drift, which I will ignore here). There's no mystery and our expectations are usually met.

With a clock that's supposed to have always been going on throughout an infinite past, there's no starting point, and it was never set to being with. And even if there was, without a finite time span between setting and reading, there's no good reason that the clock should read one particular value rather than any other.

And yet we do expect that it would. It's not a question the we don't know in a thought experiment what time it would display. It's that there's not one good reason that it should display any one particular reading rather than any other, and this even though we expect that it has to display one.

That's a contradiction in our different expectations. Something has to give, I think.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

It would be like saying the concept of 3 is algorithmic because it is the algorithmic notion of the counting process 1, 2, 3. Technically, you could view it that way, but that's a little stilted, and not how most people think of the property '3'.

Sure, concerning how most people conceive of ordinary numbers, I agree. But you would have to produce a better argument to convince me that most people don't think of an infinite future the way I described it.

Most people have no background in understanding infinity and rely on naive intuitions or half-remembered hand-waving explanations from freshman year math class.

You're assuming as true here that there is such a thing as infinity as mathematicians have come to conceived of it. Maybe that's just not true. And as long as you don't have empirical evidence to present, I will hand-wave your assumption as baseless.

Oh, wait, I'm misunderstanding you! The reality is that you're only talking about the concept of infinity, not of anything like actual infinity. Sorry, I'm not used to discussing in the abstract like you guys.

So, the concept? Well, self-evidently, ordinary folks won't be understanding the mathematician's newly minted concept of infinity any time soon. They will be pleased to keep understanding their own concept of it. So, you're jibe is really irrelevant.

It just happens it was me who started this particular conversation on infinity, not you. So either you address my point in my own terms or you provide the empirical evidence showing there's nothing in the real world corresponding to the elementary notion of infinity I'm using.

Keep in mind that even if it's true that there's something in the real world corresponding to your concept of infinity, that doesn't make the unsophisticated notion of infinity I'm using wrong.

The real situation is that mathematicians have developed their own concept of infinity. Good for them, but that doesn't invalidate the Common Man's notion of infinity. It just means we're talking of different things. That of the Common Man came first I'm sure. Mathematicians could have used a different word for their new concept. Don't complain now.

You specifically made a claim about mathematicians that wasn't true and I pointed that out.

Thank God you did that! I've learned something this time. Please keep up the good work!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

It's generally considered pedagogically polite to use terminology that your audience will understand. You seem to be stuck in an 18th century conception of what infinity is, so I wasn't going to try and get you to understand by jumping straight into the modern formalisms.

If you'd prefer it that way, I could. It doesn't matter anyway.

Theorem: Any metric measure of time that allows an infinite span of time is decomposable into a disjoint union of time 'epochs', where a timespan is finite if and only if it lies within an epoch.

Sorry, Love, my "audience" is not mathematicians.

If you want to take part in this conversation you will need to explain yourself in the ordinary lingo used by most reasonably well-educated people. Can you do that? If so, you're welcome to explain yourself.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

If "mathematicians actually see being 'infinite' as a property of objects", then there should be no difficulty whatsoever for you to consider, obviously in the abstract, the problem of what kind of clock could conceivably have counted time for the whole duration of an infinite past.

Well yes, but I am sick of trying to explain set theory to people who don't care to listen. I've already resolved to stop getting sucked into these depressing conversations, but everyone can see how well that's worked so far.

I guess you'll have to make up your own mind. I can't do it for you.

And you seem so Shakespeareanly conflicted. To be or not to be kind of thing.

Oh wait! I know! You only came in motivated by the opportunity of setting me straight on the current thinking of mathematicians on infinity. You've done that and now you have nothing else to motivate you. Well, it's fine with me if you just go away.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Still, I now have the answer.

Just take a look at my previous post and tell me what's wrong with my clock.
EB

Yeah, OK.

I have the answer.

Just take a look at my post below and tell me what's wrong with my clock.
EB

We could even imagine two lines of pebbles, both infinite but in only one direction, and going in exactly opposite directions from each other. They would also be separated by just the space necessary for one pebble. All the counter has to do is to shift one pebble from the supply line to the counter line. Easy do.

Or better still, there is just one infinite line of pebbles, each one marked "0" on one side and "1" on the other. All the pebbles in one direction show a "1" (the past). All the pebbles in the other direction (the future) show a "0". Every second, the one pebble among those showing "0" which is also next to one showing "1" is flipped over to show "1" too. And so on.

Well, I guess that's all there is to say then.

It works. Thanks!
EB

 

[bilby]

Sure.

Hence the difficulty in deciding what time a clock that would have always been there would display.

There is no more difficulty in deciding what time a clock that would not have always been there would display. It's relative to what it displayed at some other point in time, same as for any other clock.

My question was as to why the clock should show any particular reading at all, and if so, then which one.

When you read the time on an ordinary clock, the reading is a direct result of what the reading was the last time you looked at it, and ultimately at what time you set the clock when you started it initially (and, obviously, on it's imprecision and drift, which I will ignore here). There's no mystery and our expectations are usually met.

With a clock that's supposed to have always been going on throughout an infinite past, there's no starting point, and it was never set to being with. And even if there was, without a finite time span between setting and reading, there's no good reason that the clock should read one particular value rather than any other.

And yet we do expect that it would. It's not a question the we don't know in a thought experiment what time it would display. It's that there's not one good reason that it should display any one particular reading rather than any other, and this even though we expect that it has to display one.

That's a contradiction in our different expectations. Something has to give, I think.
EB

A clock is going to cycle through all possible time displays every twelve hours (or twenty four hours, depending on its design).

We cannot know until we look what time it displays; But knowing that it is a clock, we can limit the possibilities to those times a clock CAN display. So it is analogous to a well shuffled deck of cards - draw out one card, and you cannot say which of the 52 possibilities it is, without looking at it first. But you still know that it will be one of those 52 possibilities, and that it has an equal chance of being any of them. You are able to say with complete certainty that it's not the fifteen of clubs, or the three of widgets.

Your hypothetical clock will display a random time, that is somewhere within the range of times it is able to display. There is no way to predict in advance what time that will be, because there is no defined starting point or earlier time point where the time displayed was known. Once you look at the clock, you can say with certainty what it displayed at any given finite distance into the past; and what it will display at any given finite distance into the future. But you still won't know what time it started with, because the question is nonsensical - it never started. You may as well ask what day in the past I was last in Paris - a city I have yet to visit. The question is meaningless, given the known prior information that I haven't been there yet.

 

[Juma]

I have the answer.

Just take a look at my post below and tell me what's wrong with my clock.
EB

We could even imagine two lines of pebbles, both infinite but in only one direction, and going in exactly opposite directions from each other. They would also be separated by just the space necessary for one pebble. All the counter has to do is to shift one pebble from the supply line to the counter line. Easy do.

Or better still, there is just one infinite line of pebbles, each one marked "0" on one side and "1" on the other. All the pebbles in one direction show a "1" (the past). All the pebbles in the other direction (the future) show a "0". Every second, the one pebble among those showing "0" which is also next to one showing "1" is flipped over to show "1" too. And so on.

Well, I guess that's all there is to say then.

It works. Thanks!
EB

What is wrong with it? It isnt a a clock. A clock assigns a (periodically) monotonously increasing function to ticks. Your ”clock” of pebbles is always ”1”.

 

[Juma]

Yeah right.. Release you inner moron on me...

Your English at least is getting better!

Have it never occurred to you that maybe, just maybe it is you that doesnt get it.

My question was as to why the clock should show any particular reading at all, and if so, then which one.

When you read the time on an ordinary clock, the reading is a direct result of what the reading was the last time you looked at it, and ultimately at what time you set the clock when you started it initially (and, obviously, on it's imprecision and drift, which I will ignore here). There's no mystery and our expectations are usually met.

With a clock that's supposed to have always been going on throughout an infinite past, there's no starting point, and it was never set to being with. And even if there was, without a finite time span between setting and reading, there's no good reason that the clock should read one particular value rather than any other.

And yet we do expect that it would. It's not a question the we don't know in a thought experiment what time it would display. It's that there's not one good reason that it should display any one particular reading rather than any other, and this even though we expect that it has to display one.

That's a contradiction in our different expectations. Something has to give, I think.
EB

But there is no contradiction. If a cyclic process (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) is 3 at a specific timepoint then it was 2 before and will be 4 after. The further back in time you go ut will spell out 4,3,2,1,4,3,2,1... etc. forever.

I dont see any contradiction here.

 

[untermensche]

It's generally considered pedagogically polite to use terminology that your audience will understand. You seem to be stuck in an 18th century conception of what infinity is, so I wasn't going to try and get you to understand by jumping straight into the modern formalisms.

If you'd prefer it that way, I could. It doesn't matter anyway.

Theorem: Any metric measure of time that allows an infinite span of time is decomposable into a disjoint union of time 'epochs', where a timespan is finite if and only if it lies within an epoch.

Sorry, Love, my "audience" is not mathematicians.

If you want to take part in this conversation you will need to explain yourself in the ordinary lingo used by most reasonably well-educated people. Can you do that? If so, you're welcome to explain yourself.
EB

Good luck with that one.

The only thing she has going for her is she knows a few terms of jargon.

She has no ability to think about that jargon.

It is just a smoke screen that is supposed to dazzle. Nothing rational besides the jargon will emerge from her.

 

[Kharakov]

a) if time has been around forever, there is a timespan with an unbounded past, unless you specifically define spans as finite quantities. Spans can be infinite, as far as I know.


Unless what you call a time span (in your single thread of existence) is actually multidimensional. I think GR can be interpreted in such a way that each point in spacetime has a unique timeline that splits off from the rest at every moment. So there is an infinite volume of time in every finite timespan, since an infinite amount of timelines are created each moment.


Or broadly speaking geometric, when we describe curves, or the number of faces of an infinihedron (you know, a sphere...), or number of sides of an infinigon (a circle).

In fact, it's directly built into smooth nature all around us, and there is nothing more natural than infinity, so it's really hard to avoid it when describing nature with mathematics. Pi, e, all things transcendental are required to transcend finite math so that math can be used to describe all of nature's infinities.

Without infinity, math cannot describe nature with anything resembling precision, because of the infinite amount of infinities we encounter in nature daily.

I'm all for infinite time spans. I would have more time to think about the infinite.

The infinite time I mentioned was more of a volume (lots of time lines) than a span. Sorry.

Now you'll have to explain to me how General Relativity could relevant to my question: Why the clock should show any particular reading at all, and if so, then which one?

It's not pertinent to that- you claimed that between any 2 points in time, a finite amount of time existed, drop the GR reference, and read it without invoking GR. It's not pertinent to that question still- it's pertinent to the claim that between 2 points in time, a finite amount of time exists, which is entirely dependent upon what you mean by "between 2 points in time".

If you say "the shortest time path between 2 points", there is only one. If there are multiple time paths of certain lengths between 2 points in time, or multiple shortest paths, then there can be an infinite amount of time between 2 points. I doubt there is- I'm just throwing out an annoying logical formality. I apologize.

With a clock that's supposed to have always been going on throughout an infinite past, there's no starting point, and it was never set to being with. And even if there was, without a finite time span between setting and reading, there's no good reason that the clock should read one particular value rather than any other.

Well, yeah. Depending on the configuration of all things in the universe, which might be somewhat location dependent, you're going to get different "first tick" times, even if the same type of clock (call it a photon) forms in various locations with various innate properties (say that a certain mathematical logic leads to certain conclusions, which lead to certain clocks being formed).

Before it forms, there might be various processes occurring that aren't measured by the clock. If conditions are right, and the clock can be formed, it is.

Obviously any clocks would not exist until someone knew that certain things evolved, propagated at relative rates, and figured out how to build something that used this fact to measure whether other things did as well, and then organized various stuff in the local universe. This requires some form of information persistence first, which requires an existing framework that can support information persistence, which requires also that the information that exists form specific "seed" values from which other information can crystalize into meaningful patterns, blah blah blah blah^infinity blah.

So the clock is meaningless. First, there must exist someone to measure, with the ability to measure, and influence the outcome of events, before there is a clock. Unless you propose spontaneous clock formation? I still remember when it rained watches in Ibiza, but that could have been pi "I begin to fall" casso's painting.... (casso.. latin... look it up, use circular reasoning).

Right now I don't think General Relativity has much relevance to that.

It doesn't, any framework in which time can occupy volume, instead of a "line", can have infinite amounts of linear time per volume. It's just GR has that sort of built into it (with spacetime expansion factored into it, which means even points separated by the a tiny finite distance experience different times because of the spacetime expansion between them...). Maybe it's the KK (Kaluza Klein) version that does, although I think they added dimensions of space, rather than time, which is sort of the same thing... if you think about it in a certain way.

Anyway. Drop GR from what I said, and just focus on "a volume has an infinite amount of parallel line segments within itself".

 

[Kharakov]

Good luck with that one. The only thing she has going for her is she knows a few terms of jargon.

She has no ability to think about that jargon. It is just a smoke screen that is supposed to dazzle. Nothing rational besides the jargon will emerge from her.

It's just lazy language, like unterEnglish, except it conveys right instead of wrong.

 

[untermensche]

Good luck with that one. The only thing she has going for her is she knows a few terms of jargon.

She has no ability to think about that jargon. It is just a smoke screen that is supposed to dazzle. Nothing rational besides the jargon will emerge from her.

It's just lazy language, like unterEnglish, except it conveys right instead of wrong.

You speak like a religious nut.

There is nothing right about believing infinity could somehow be real.

Just as there is nothing right about believing your imaginary friends are real.