Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

By FAR.

But more “different” than “better”. Instruments are for verifying, not determining.

Can you show me your pictures…or drawings, of the edge of the universe, or not-edge of the universe I mean.

Can I show you a picture of what isn’t there? Hmmm… could be an issue with that. But I can see why you are having trouble understanding. You seem to be trying to picture the absence of something. Logic has the advantage of not requiring pictures, although not excluding them either. It is Logic that informs/reveals that there is no edge. And it seems that Logic is not one of your preferred skills nor confidences.

My confidence is verified Logic. Unfortunately a large part of the verification is merely not being able to find anyone who can rationally disagree. I prefer someone who can also confidently agree. But we live in an age of insecurities and fear governing the lives of far too many people.

Can you think of any particular reason why this is not in principle a very good idea even if the hypothesis in question turns out to be true

No?

Logic can demonstrate mathematical truth but cannot demonstrate empirical truth
You are using it to demonstrate the latter when it is not sufficiently rigorous for this
You need to use science and specifically the scientific method to demonstrate RM AO
For empirical truth cannot simply be demonstrated by using only logic or mathematics

A famous example : logic says that if you drop two objects of different mass from the same height at the same time that the heavier one will hit the ground
before the lighter one. But empiricism says that they will both hit the ground at the same time. This is why any assumption about physical reality no matter
how self evident it appears to be has to be tested. Any assumption which cannot be subject to potential falsification cannot be taken to be empirically true

Mathematical truth can demonstrate anything at the hand of a mathematician - including that which is empirically false. It can also disprove other mathematical truths given enough effort.

Logic always works in the hands of a skilled logician. It was never a logician who said that a light object and a heavy object would fall at different speeds.

In the hands of the unskilled, as many errors are made using empirical demonstration as are made in using logic. Empiricism without logic is just foolishness and temptation into superstition. Logic without empiricism is hypothesis awaiting demonstration. Logic leads to the impetus to demonstrate. But demonstration leads to the impetus to presume, void of cohesive thought (magic tricks believed to be true demonstrations).

Logic alone can tell you of what the universe is made. It requires no empirical demonstration. Logic alone can tell you of why subatomic particles form. That too requires no demonstration, although the more intricate the logic becomes, the more temptation there is to verify with demonstration. Logic alone can tell you how and why molecules form. Logic alone can tell you how and why gravitation works. Logic alone can tell you why positive and negative migrate toward each other. Logic alone can tell you how and why everything in the universe does what it does. Demonstration alone tempts one into fool-hearty superstitions.

The only purpose for empirical demonstration is to verify that logic errors have not been made.

Maybe he was just able to figure out that space cant be limited by anything that isnt also space. I.e. maybe he was just thinking accurately.

Logic rather demands that we do not make assumptions. You seem to think it means to faithfully assume random ideas as true because they feel true. Thats actually not logic.

bad example. the heavier one hits first always everytime, especially with air resistance, but even without air resistance.

If I am not mistaken, I think surreptitious57 is referring to experiments undertaken at places like the Fallturm Bremen(is also able to simulate weightlessness, with the newly installed catapult). surreptitious57 may also be referring to experiments that take place in space.

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 are you sure about even without air resistance? Purely a matter of curiosity for me.

:-k

surreptitious57

I see where you are coming from . . . however . . . and I have a headache - so I can only hope this makes sense.

Is that true though? Consider existing empirical data.

I would not be too sure about this, especially as time goes on. The scientific method can be applied in computer simulations and emulations to a high degree of accuracy. With the availability of empirical data we have at our disposal these days, we can at the very least, arrive at a high enough degree of accuracy to determine whether an hypothesis is accurate - just by plugging in numbers from empirical data. I am quite happy to elaborate . . . when this headache is gone.

#-o

Mass doesnt alter g.
G on earth is 9.8.

Fixed Cross

Yes - I have that in my head . . . I am not sure how correct I was in that post.

What I was responding to triggered a memory. When I do physics these days - I use a lot of references.

My idea is this:

If we have reason to believe that we are here now . . .

. . . then why do we not have reason to believe that we have been here before ? . .

. . . and why do we have no reason to believe that we will be here again?

Given the number of possible outcomes using the same stuff contained in our universe now - then it is possible that all of the stars and planets and other bodies could just as easily have taken a different configuration - which means that each time of return could be different also.

I have my reservations on a cyclical time however - eternal return is not necessarily dependent on time either - this may be basing the idea around people but a leap in imagination could make a universe reconfigure without people.

So I am saying eternal reconfiguration - which also allows room for eternal rebirth et cetera.

Just an idea!

:-k

yes you can test this with planets, planets have more gravity around other planets.
and the gravity equation accounts mass as a variable

Thank you for answering - it might have seemed like a peculiar question, my apologies for that if so.

:smiley:

no worries

The mathematics works out to be that even if given an infinity of time, the universe could never be in the exact same state as it ever had been before. It is a fact that every instant in time is new, throughout eternity.