That may mean, if you are right, that some point in the future/past I will find/lose again my car keys that I lost last week

Funny but not quite right.
We mere mortals move in one direction in time - forward. You lost your keys at some point in the past, which may also be some point in the future of the next universe but that is a very long time away. At the moment when you mislaid your keys, you knew exactly where they were and that implies that you still know where they are on some level, unless a random variable has caused those keys to be moved in the intervening time.
I forgot to mention random variable that affect the future but they are always present, even when they are not a factor. Putting your keys down and then forgetting where they are amy be seperated by only a short period of time but the future is uncertain, so finding them again could happen in moments or it may never happen (too many variables to consider). Where you left them is now a fixed point in your personal past and when you can remember that moment, then you will know that your keys have been there all the time (unless some variable has moved them) and you knew it.

Dynamic systems are constantly changing. The Universe is a dynamic system. This point in time in the next universe may be entirely different from this point in time in this, or the previous universe because of the dynamic influence of multiple variables.

Your key dillema reminds me of Schrodinger's cat in some ways.

Perhaps I should clarify a couple of things?
1. My spelling and grammar are not good, especially when I am thinking and writing at one time. I apologise.
2. I didn't make up the concept that time may be curved. I read Albert Einstein describe it as such.
3. Perhaps a wheel is the wrong mental image, perhaps time could be imagined as a giant ball and our choices decide our course across the surface? I still prefer the wheel image, even if it does imply a certain amount of pre-determination.
4. Time is linear and time, as we know it, has a fixed speed (60 seconds/minute, 60 minutes/hour, etc.) We move in a forward direction in step with the sedate (normal) pace of time.
5. Light has a fixed speed and the universe is very, very big. When we look at phenomena in space, we ARE seeing past events and that is a basic F.A.C.T..

Now, would the four (so far) people who consider my first comment "unconstructive" like to explain their reasoning, or is that too hard?

What are you even saying?

Seriously, I can't decipher any of your argument.

Dear Sean,

The first paragraph is compacted central conceptualizations from Norbert Weiner essays in cybernetics and his student Shannon’s work concerning information theory, in my effort to present you the general frame of the current digitize computation control information concepts that we dealing in every day scientific processes. Obvious mathematical and crystal clear allowed me to say rooted for binaries.

The key thinking for the last paragraph is the word entropy, which especially in cosmology either negative or positive can be perceived in several orders of magnitude articulating and challenging our perception and some physic constants as well. While most of the known universe is still unknown especially via dark energy/matter and while we can’t configure how to interact in sufficient time measurements, I think is not a bad idea to mobilize even more fruitful concepts from others people minds that did have the ability to describe so precisely physics with direct implications also in cosmology measurements and to refer to them especially for their passion and ability to expand knowledge with fantasy and to such a poetic way.

Perhaps you have not got past the first sentence in my reply. I am not confused but theoretical Physics is hopelessly mired in its own illogical creation. I quote from page 167 of the book “Concepts of Particle Physics Part one’ by K. Gottfried and V. F. Weiskopf: “Nevertheless, it would be aesthetically appealing, to say the least, if one could construct a theory that incorporates all the known interactions in an integrated fashion.
”. From page 543 Part two, “Can some grand principle--–some wondrous elegant set off equations---encompass all of Physics? Einstein’s theory has always been viewed as the intellectual structure that best epitomises the goal that physics seeks: an axiomatic basis of austere but compelling force which, when elegantly formulated, leads inexorably to phenomena that are complex and that were previously inexplicable or not even anticipated. ” (note added 1986). This if you think is a correct statement from a physicist, my point was to lead you to that established in black and whit on my website. Since you have not seen it then your the ones who seek media misrepresentation to promote theories have no basis so you can be on the top of the funding heap. the website http://www.kapillavastu.com/index.html?r=20120724134234 has an axiom based theory that is perfect. Would you have the temerity to read it and continue a dialoge for the SAKE of scientific progress. As a astronomer you know there are oodles of anomlies and could I offer to solve them for from the theory given in that website. Go through it you wont regret it

An axiom which works pretty well is the one of energy conservation. Thermo dynamics will give a direction to the flow of that energy and its appearances. Let's say 'western' physics is using this axiom of energy conservation did pretty well until Max Planck (and later Einstein defined it) came to the conclusion that the physics would hold until a minimal scale, the Planck scale. QM to the rescue. Which has the Heizenberg relation making it possible to have energy created and destroyed as long as it is within a certain time frame. Call that another axiom. Since then we (including me) have worked with these two 'axioms' or hypothesis.
However in your perfect theory I can not find any reason for the axioms or hypothesis to be true. As far as I am concerned your perfect theory is build on two ambiguous words, translated according to your definitions. If there is one thing important, it is the ability to translate a concept into a working unambiguous framework, called mathematics. Going around in that world of maths, you might find an already proof for your hypothesis, but I doubt it.

I take your point that on the face of it ,an entire theory being founded on axioms seems improbable. I presume, to be fair ,your reply has been framed after you saw my website. Hence I will raise an issue that is axiomatic but unsolvable in physics with its math structure. If ten people clap once one after another, the observer (you ) can certainly count those ten accurately. If the same ten people, all clap at the same INSTANT or SIMULTANEOUSLY you the observer CANNOT count more that ONE clap though it may seem to be of a different intensity. What I have stated is an unimpeachable, unquestionable, unequivocal AXIOMATIC FACT so I don't even have to await your assent. ALL of Physics depends on COUNTING wavelengths or frequencies AS THE ONLY MEANS TO DETECT ANALYSE AND UNDERSTAND scientific phenomena not amenable to physical handling on the lab table. Without naming the numerous anomalies and catastrophes explicitly, those caveats were glossed over by the discovery of the quanta by Planck, without realizing what the quanta concealed was the very same axiomatic fact of events occurring SIMULTANEOUSLY. Even to this day that concealed spectrum, that cannot be EVER detected by COUNTING EXPLICITLY , has left science with a baggage of irrational explanations as E = MC^2, unsolvable anomalies like red-shift in cosmology and preposterous hypothesis. like dark matter -energy etc and to cap it all the Higgs boson. I say this with all sincerity , read with understanding the PHO state derivation
where (among many more derivations) the proton, neutron and electron masses, ABSOLUTELY EQUAL TO VALUES IN PHYSICS, have been derived from PURELY FROM NUMERICAL AXIOMS WITHOUT ANY INPUT, on my website http://www.kapillavastu.com/index.html?r=20120724134234.
Those derivations can never be done in today's Physics mathematical techniques. If you are really interested I can explain, expose and prove the findings that Physics has yet to do in theoretical physics. And even more I do have working equipment that prove beyond a shadow of doubt that confirms AXIOMS are natures yardstick to operate a magnificent, unified law using just one parameter.

I have a new axiom for everyone:

The degree of craziness is in direct proportion to the number of capitalised words in a post :p

If you have made that statement after seeing the website I can at least say that you have shown the trait that scientists are supposed to do-show curiosity to see if scientific information from any source is correct. Else self aplomb is the foundation for craziness born out of egotism!!! Even with the capitals it has got past the cerebral structure of so called intellectuals so one has to create other forms of emphasis. The least scientists can do to help science is to see all other sources to correct the anomalies that abound in Physics and for the same scientists seem helpless in removing it. See website http://www.kapillavastu.com/index.html?r=20120724134234 and you might find that all the anomalies can be removed just by deriving Physics from axioms and that may indeed surprise you.

Surpirse is one word for it. Perhaps not the most apt word though...

Would you like to elaborate on what exactly is 'Vedic Science'? Wikipedia only has entries about crazy pseudoscietific belief systems with origins in religious texts...

I understand. Since Wiki itself is a pseudo creation it's natural trend is to go orient bashing!!!
Vedic Science as Sankhya is an Intellectual process of deriving the laws of Universal phenomena through combinatorial mathematical analysis based on axioms. Since it is very correct and remains so always its ritualistic practices (yoga/meditation etc) has been classified as religion by occidental authors (Maxmuller??) Perhaps my website is too elaborate for a cursory inspection so I give 10 general points as a comparative between Sankhya and Physics/Cosmology.
Why is Sankhya, as a holistic theory is correct and complete whereas Science, comprising Physics and Cosmology have no answers to the anomalies that have been found by its Physicists and Cosmologists?
1. Sankhya is based on axioms that are precise whereas Science is based on experimentally detected inputs that have built in errors.
2. Sankhya uses time, as the interval of an axiomatic cycle, which enables the derivation of parameters accurately and proportionately, while in Science all parameters are defined in an arbitrary manner and leads to errors.
3. Sankhya treats all phenomena exactly as humans experience events locally, whereas Science depends on created hypothesis based on detected evidence.
4. Sankhya depends on a logical and unified model of phenomenal activities that are intellectually acceptable whereas Science creates models based on experimental findings and creates theories to unify these.
5. Since Sankhya has a intellectually defined model it is able to treat detectable and hidden phenomena accurately whereas Science depends on detection first , hidden phenomena get treated as anomalies or unexpected behaviour that cannot be defined by its theoretical findings.
6. Axiomatic derivations based on numerical logic in Sankhya gives precise and definite results always whereas in Science experimentally formulated numerical logic has to be equated by creating arbitrary constants.
7. As Sankhya depends on axiomatic logic to understand phenomena it is able to predict experimental results accurately and hence is effective, whereas in Science there is always uncertainty that makes it depend on statistical verification as measure accuracy.
8. In Sankhya, the axiomatic base dependant on a single variable as cyclic time provides verifiable and dependable internal numerical theoretical proof whereas in Science it is entirely dependent on observable experimental detection from which a theory is deduced and has no definite alternate method of verification except through statistics.
9. Sankhya theory based on axioms is objective and its combinatorial mathematical logic enables the derivation of both maximum and minimum limits, which defines its limiting boundaries with certainty whereas in Science the observable experimental limit severely curtails its ability to be precise, certain and complete.
10. Sankhya being axiom based and complete with internally generated proof is forms a permanent theory whereas Sciences has necessarily to change continuously depending on the experimental findings and the consequential evolution of its depend theoretical logic. Will be truly delighted ig Scientists
understand and take Sankhya good points into physics glossary. http://www.kapillavastu.com/index.html?r=20120724134234
Cheers

My first one relates to point 6; some in the field have suggested that the so called 'cosmological constant' is indeed not constant. I have often wondered whether this is related to a biomorphic feedback loop, but not a classical one but a quantum mechanical one in which the nonlocality of my wavefunction (or the experimenter or theorist for that matter) is in some way interfering with the hidden variables that determine the value of the constant. Now, obviously it can't effect the past value of the constant (as we measure it) but could not these interference effects change the downstream (i.e. future) properties of the variables. Point 8, which mentions cyclic time is perhaps the clue. As these downstream effects are then amplified and carried through the singularity (e.g. the big bang) to my/our present, thus giving the appearance that the constant is indeed changing?

The second question I have is in regards to the human mind. Surely a coherent physical picture of the universe has to incorporate a 'model' of thought. As it is this thought which is processing the universe in which it is in. I see an apparent contradiction here, unless mind is somehow external to the universe and simply 'interacts' with it via some type of energy exchange. Is there any wonder that as our intelligence as a species increases we start to discover mysterious extra energy in the universe AKA dark energy. Is this perhaps the means by which 'mind' engages with the universe. My question is then; dose Sankhya theory have anything to say re: the mind/universe relationship and the apparent contradiction that I cite?

It is possible that my traditional training has implanted certain intellectual blocks to seeing the big picture. I hope you can help.

My first one relates to point 6; 'cosmological constant' is indeed not constant.
Every point in space is some form of real matter and unless destroyed deliberately must remain constant. It forms the Cosmological constant.

In Sankhya it is MY with numerical value is 1.334Eminus 51 kgs mass value. It is a ratio of the sum of all harmonic states that can exist at the same location within the same cyclic time interval. The axiomatic (Catalan) / collision of 2 volumes of interaction numerically derived as: 0.915/{ (C^3)(C^3)}= 1.334Eminus 51 kgs and C is axiomatic 10^(2/0.618^3) =2.965E+8 And plancks constant as quanta h /C^2 =MY or MY C^2 =h=quanta =7 Neutrinos.
Notice the consonance of axiomatic MY with h derived by Planck as a blackbody radiation quanta.

I have often wondered whether this is related to a biomorphic feedback loop, but not a classical one but a quantum mechanical one in which the nonlocality of my wavefunction (or the experimenter or theorist for that matter) is in some way interfering with the hidden variables that determine the value of the constant.

On the contrary the experimenter or any object or observer or cerebral network acting as simultaneous ensemble becomes a singularity which is flooded by the surrounding wave function collapse in space as a quantum of MYs = h/C^2. The cerebral hemispheres surrounding the Pineal (singularity) act as the polariser that decodes all signals by balancing left and right hemispheres = rational thought.
Are able to decipher my stilted replies? This method may not convey deeper
complexities that need maths solutions .However you choose a method and I will answer all your questions. This is a trial Cheers

OK, now I feel bad. I started this out as a troll but your response just makes me feel sorry for you.

What I did was to use what I think is the formula people such as you use to make their claims.

First you pick on a semi controversial idea that has made it to the attention of non-specialists (I used the cosmological constant and dark energy).

Then you string a series of cool sounding science words together like nonlocal, biomorphic, etc. Let me be clear. I did this knowing that what I had written literally made no sense whatsoever.

Now, here is an important aspect of the formula; it needs to sound a bit antiestablishment or conspiratorial. So when I said things like 'so called' and 'contradiction', also, my use of inverted commas was all designed to imply some sort of 'oh scientists think they are so smart look I'm using their language against them' and ‘only we can see the real truth’.

My questions were nothing but gibberish and yet you seized on them immediately. It is my opinion that people such as yourself are fundamentally deluded and therefore can't see what you are doing. I don't mean this in a negative way. I actually feel bad for you.

That said, there is every chance that you too are trolling and if that is the case then I take my hat off to you. Well done.

Sadly, I don't think this is the case.

I will finish by saying that the fundamental problem you and others like you fail to realise is that you have no appreciation for HOW SCIENCE IS DONE (nb. not crazy capitals). It is difficult to explain in a short post, but there have been numerous books written on the subject that can express it far more articulately than I can.

Now, before you worry that I am trying to convince you of the reality of what I am saying, don't worry. I'm not. For I fully understand that you are unwilling and indeed incapable of being 'converted'.

Hopefully some of what I have said leaves a small impression on you and the next time you think twice before posting in and around (<-an in joke for my ***** **** friends) a thread for a serious scientific topic.

I mean no malice in any of what I have said.

The hallmark of any scientist is to show curiosity in understanding science from any quarter. But you were afraid to be confronted in an open dialogue , perhaps an axiomatic theory gave you the jitters? So you preferred deceitful retreat . Ridiculing other theories is a sure sign of an intellectual vacuum. To your question “H OW SCIENCE IS DONE “ the answer for you is “ HALF BAKED!” - Which is fully ensured by the bicycle mechanics approach you seem to be trained in. Seen your thesis, struggling to make something a glass blowers outfit does in a trice and yet you have failed. You know why? There is a conceptual blunder in your derivations. You need more education on axioms indeed. So called Snells law you have quoted begins with a 19.086354 degree axiomatic angle and am sure you are a stranger to that value. Even the Wiki you quote from has not even heard of it. Does that angle ring a bell ? If it did then you may succeed in your experiment for then you would alter your approach but of course how can you in the intellectual vacuum you are trained in? Perhaps a bicycle ride could refresh your approach? Better still read Sankhya perhaps you may even become a wizard in science!!

Great to find that you have the courage to throw the cat among the pigeons!
The theory of a grand existence like the Universe cannot be based on belief but hard ascertained and provable knowledge. I am not sure how to engage in a dialogue with you but perhaps if you have the time to visit http://www.kapillavastu.com/index.html?r=20120724134234 and wade through some significant articles as the slide PPT, PHO state, Eclipse experiment and any other that may catch your interest It proves that Big Bang is a human creation just as the Big Chill doing its rounds, For there is unequivocal proof for the substratum of space has a critical matter density of 3.6 E minus 25 kgs/ cum and the maximum distance a photon of light can travel before it loses its potential is 6 E + 25 metres. The PHO state pdf file will show how space is a dynamic bed of vibrations that are in the Neutron, Proton and electron mass states for a brief interval (femtosec) but attain a permanent state as it is gravitationally bound by the pressence of larger masses etc. I would indeed like to discuus further if!!!! Cheers