After thinking about time contraction and what may happen at t=0.
The effect of time is 0 so eveything happens instantly, this means that you would exist eveywhere in the universe at the same time, so the space you take up would effectively be infinite, it would take 0 time to get anywhere but at the same time the length of your existance would also = 0. This offers a possibly new solution to the twin paradox, they would both live the same amount of time but one would appear to die younger than the other.
At the other end of the scale with t=infinity space would appear to shrink to 0, it would take an infinite amount of time to do anything so you would effectively be fixed to a small point in space for eternity. To observers in normal time the first would appear to move at infinite speed for an infinitely small time and the second would just appear to be fixed in space.
Perhaps time/ length dilation could be linked to wavelength, I am trying to work out why blue/short wave should appear closer than red/longer wavelength, that is literal, this seems to mean they are made of different amounts of time and space but with the total adding up to c.
I will try to explain my conclusions as best I can.
Imagine space as a wheel and time as its axle as the wheel gets bigger so the axle shrinks into it this combination is spacetime where we exist. The axle is infinite and t=0 is always on the rim. The wheel is not expanding straight out but spirally, from the principle of least time, this is where the angular momentum we see in the universe comes from and explains the difference between newton and einstein. Newton describes a series of concentric circles einstein is able to describe the slight difference in arc caused by the spiral.
Inflation is explained by the great difference in space and time at just after point zero or point of origin, see what happens at t=0 above. As time gets bigger so expansion of space slows down so inflation would be the equivalent of a nearly straight line at the start of the spiral.
If we take the supermassive black holes as points of origin we find spacetime expanding outwards from them, each galaxy with a SMBH could be treated as a seperate universe to simplify things, so what happens when expanding spacetime meets expanding spacetime well they cannot exist in the same spacetime so they push against each other causing the apparent expansion of space a bit like ever expanding frogspawn.
This is only an explaination of the structure of spacetime not the things we see in it although I suspect something like closed timeloops may be the answer.
I have simplified this explaination as far as possible yet still offered a solution for the twin paradox, angular momentum, supermassive black holes, the difference between einseins and newtons equations, the expansion of the universe, the multiverse and inflation at the start, no other models I have come across can do this.
T=0 does not meant there is no time, it means time starts here.
Similarly, there is no t=infinity, infinity is a duration, not an end point.
So your hypothesis fails on it's initial premise.
Similarly, there is no t=infinity, infinity is a duration, not an end point.
So your hypothesis fails on it's initial premise.
QUOTE (AlexG+May 30 2012, 02:10 PM)
T=0 does not meant there is no time, it means time starts here.
Similarly, there is no t=infinity, infinity is a duration, not an end point.
So your hypothesis fails on it's initial premise.
That is strange . I had a frog spawn on my mind a couple days ago as a model of the universe.
There is something strange about the copy? Do you copy.
Must of been planted in my brain by some mechanism. So strange .
O.K. I think the universe is a fart or a lougy . We are a lougy . Better yet a sneeze.
Lougy's have a point of origin and a day they go splat so I do lean more towards a fart.
Sneeze is a more solid symbol though
Similarly, there is no t=infinity, infinity is a duration, not an end point.
So your hypothesis fails on it's initial premise.
That is strange . I had a frog spawn on my mind a couple days ago as a model of the universe.
There is something strange about the copy? Do you copy.
Must of been planted in my brain by some mechanism. So strange .
O.K. I think the universe is a fart or a lougy . We are a lougy . Better yet a sneeze.
Lougy's have a point of origin and a day they go splat so I do lean more towards a fart.
Sneeze is a more solid symbol though
Alex Time contracts in relativity, your T=0 is what you regard as the start of time, My T=0 is where time contracts to 0, they could be regarded as the same point in time but not in the way I suspect you are looking at it. I think you look at T=0 as the start of the universe I see it as where the future starts these points are at opposite ends of the time scale, the point of origin of the universe is now T=14 billion years give or take. Infinity just means it goes on without stopping unless an outside force intervenes.
Mekigals reply is typical of a closed mind that will never have a origional thought.
I notice the lack of counter explainations to rubbish my idea, just the usual its not true because that the way I think.
Mekigals reply is typical of a closed mind that will never have a origional thought.
I notice the lack of counter explainations to rubbish my idea, just the usual its not true because that the way I think.
T=0
The point @ which a mass is moving @ C relative to something in the universe is the point @ which time no longer changes relative to the something.
Tick ratio between the 2 objects is = ∞:1 or 1:∞ depending on how you look @ it.
The wave front of a light cone for example.
Light for example is at rest in time (without the Hubble 'constant' that is, a subject for a whole other discussion).
The point @ which a mass is moving @ C relative to something in the universe is the point @ which time no longer changes relative to the something.
Tick ratio between the 2 objects is = ∞:1 or 1:∞ depending on how you look @ it.
The wave front of a light cone for example.
Light for example is at rest in time (without the Hubble 'constant' that is, a subject for a whole other discussion).
QUOTE (Ed Wood+May 31 2012, 01:29 PM)
T=0
The point @ which a mass is moving @ C relative to something in the universe is the point @ which time no longer changes relative to the something.
Tick ratio between the 2 objects is = ∞:1 or 1:∞ depending on how you look @ it.
The wave front of a light cone for example.
Light for example is at rest in time (without the Hubble 'constant' that is, a subject for a whole other discussion).
Could you define inflation for me please.
The point @ which a mass is moving @ C relative to something in the universe is the point @ which time no longer changes relative to the something.
Tick ratio between the 2 objects is = ∞:1 or 1:∞ depending on how you look @ it.
The wave front of a light cone for example.
Light for example is at rest in time (without the Hubble 'constant' that is, a subject for a whole other discussion).
Could you define inflation for me please.
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+May 31 2012, 11:30 AM)
Could you define inflation for me please.
Do you post anything aside form troll questions?
Do you post anything aside form troll questions?
How can light be at rest in time, are you suggesting that time and light travel at the same speed?
The point @ which a mass is moving @ C relative to something in the universe is the point @ which time no longer changes relative to the something
Please explain mass I thought cannot move at c.
Fact is if you think about it is that the only thing moving forward is time you move sideways through space relative to time. As most if not all forces such as electromagnetic sum to 0 time is the only thing left to supply the energy needed to maintain the universe.
The point @ which a mass is moving @ C relative to something in the universe is the point @ which time no longer changes relative to the something
Please explain mass I thought cannot move at c.
Fact is if you think about it is that the only thing moving forward is time you move sideways through space relative to time. As most if not all forces such as electromagnetic sum to 0 time is the only thing left to supply the energy needed to maintain the universe.
Another thing worth noting, there are only 3 dimensions 2 space and 1 time going into the future, what we regard as the 3rd space dimension or depth is past time.
QUOTE (Ewol+Jun 1 2012, 05:11 PM)
Another thing worth noting, there are only 3 dimensions 2 space and 1 time going into the future, what we regard as the 3rd space dimension or depth is past time.
Really?
That is not worth mentioning.
Really?
That is not worth mentioning.
QUOTE (Ewol+Jun 1 2012, 05:11 PM)
Another thing worth noting, there are only 3 dimensions 2 space and 1 time going into the future, what we regard as the 3rd space dimension or depth is past time.
A brief review of elementary geometry:
A point is a locus with no dimension.
A line is one dimensional.
A plane is two dimensional... (two axes) often called "length and width."
A volume is three dimensional... (three axes) add "height."
Time is the duration, often called "elapsed time" for anything and everything to move around in 3-D space, on a 2-D plane, or along a 1-D line. Of course the elapsed time between "ticks" of a clock can vary with its specific environment, like traveling at faster or slower velocity or deeper into a gravity well, but that doesn't make time into an entity through which one can travel.
A brief review of elementary geometry:
A point is a locus with no dimension.
A line is one dimensional.
A plane is two dimensional... (two axes) often called "length and width."
A volume is three dimensional... (three axes) add "height."
Time is the duration, often called "elapsed time" for anything and everything to move around in 3-D space, on a 2-D plane, or along a 1-D line. Of course the elapsed time between "ticks" of a clock can vary with its specific environment, like traveling at faster or slower velocity or deeper into a gravity well, but that doesn't make time into an entity through which one can travel.
You obviously have only a limited idea of the implications of relativity and no true idea of time.
QUOTE (Ewol+Jun 5 2012, 03:26 PM)
You obviously have only a limited idea of the implications of relativity and no true idea of time.
This is supposed to be a science discussion forum. Scientific discussion includes disagreement. With what above do you disagree, specifically?
I know that the model for interaction in this forum is mostly just the dog fight of personal insults, but I challenge you to show me where I am wrong above.
I take it that your "idea of time" is the "true idea." No bias there. But no argument either.
And you have no idea what i know about " the implications of relativity."
Speak to the points I've made, in rebuttal, or concede the argument.
This is supposed to be a science discussion forum. Scientific discussion includes disagreement. With what above do you disagree, specifically?
I know that the model for interaction in this forum is mostly just the dog fight of personal insults, but I challenge you to show me where I am wrong above.
I take it that your "idea of time" is the "true idea." No bias there. But no argument either.
And you have no idea what i know about " the implications of relativity."
Speak to the points I've made, in rebuttal, or concede the argument.
The answer lies in the title of this thread and understanding the first post. Sorry if you took my last post as a personal insult it was not meant that way, you need to look where your eyes cannot see.
I may or may not explain further depends on the theological implications when I finally work them out.
I may or may not explain further depends on the theological implications when I finally work them out.
While I admit I know little of string theory I have been wondering where it might fit in. I think I can see the reason for it.
If we take a string length as the amplitude of a wave and the vibration frequency as c divided by that amplitude we get a basic string. If you randomize the direction of vibration then all would presumably cancel out, if you line the strings up and sychronize the vibrations you get longer and longer strings acting together, maybe this is where membranes come from. From this you can explain why waves travel as waves and not in a straight line and possibly mass with enough strings joined but all this can be explained by joining relativity with waves as I said in my first post. I can also see where the extra dimensions might come from although basically you only need 1 or 2. The BB would be where order took over from randomization. I have no doubt that someone will say it is far more complicated than the above but I still fail to see how it can explain anything new or include gravity for that matter.
After 30 or 40 years you would have thought that somebody may have thought its not going to produce the answers.
I suppose the final answer will just be a matter of time.
If we take a string length as the amplitude of a wave and the vibration frequency as c divided by that amplitude we get a basic string. If you randomize the direction of vibration then all would presumably cancel out, if you line the strings up and sychronize the vibrations you get longer and longer strings acting together, maybe this is where membranes come from. From this you can explain why waves travel as waves and not in a straight line and possibly mass with enough strings joined but all this can be explained by joining relativity with waves as I said in my first post. I can also see where the extra dimensions might come from although basically you only need 1 or 2. The BB would be where order took over from randomization. I have no doubt that someone will say it is far more complicated than the above but I still fail to see how it can explain anything new or include gravity for that matter.
After 30 or 40 years you would have thought that somebody may have thought its not going to produce the answers.
I suppose the final answer will just be a matter of time.
Ewol,
String theory... all five versions now combined into M-theory... is all metaphysical speculation with NO empirical evidence to support any of it. It is not science, in spite of the fame and physics degrees of its proponents. It is metaphysics.
You never replied to my post of 6/1 reviewing basic geometry and time ontology. Did you not understand it or just chose to ignore it out of disagreement. If the latter, with what do you disagree?
String theory... all five versions now combined into M-theory... is all metaphysical speculation with NO empirical evidence to support any of it. It is not science, in spite of the fame and physics degrees of its proponents. It is metaphysics.
You never replied to my post of 6/1 reviewing basic geometry and time ontology. Did you not understand it or just chose to ignore it out of disagreement. If the latter, with what do you disagree?
What you posted on 6/1 is the brains view of reality as seen through your eyes, if you understood my first post you would realise that what we concieve as reality is not the true picture, I stand by my remark that there are 2 dimensions of space and 1 of time.
I never said I agreed with string theory just that I could see what it is trying to explain and where that fits in with my model. I suspect M theory is trying to describe 3D strings.
You are still thinking with your eyes and not your mind, the truth is something much easier to explain directly rather than in a medium such as this in fact trying to explain here is likely to be near impossible if you cannot understand the first post.
This will sound strange but maybe the bible has to run its course before things become clear.
I never said I agreed with string theory just that I could see what it is trying to explain and where that fits in with my model. I suspect M theory is trying to describe 3D strings.
You are still thinking with your eyes and not your mind, the truth is something much easier to explain directly rather than in a medium such as this in fact trying to explain here is likely to be near impossible if you cannot understand the first post.
This will sound strange but maybe the bible has to run its course before things become clear.
Still no replies.
Model predicts Blackholes are holes in time not space.
Take Supermassive BHs the so called singularity at the center is the starting point of the galaxy surrounding it, the diameter, I think, is relative to the age of the galaxy. In other words the larger the BH the older the galaxy.
Another prediction, redshift is caused by the slowing down of time not the expansion of space.
Model predicts Blackholes are holes in time not space.
Take Supermassive BHs the so called singularity at the center is the starting point of the galaxy surrounding it, the diameter, I think, is relative to the age of the galaxy. In other words the larger the BH the older the galaxy.
Another prediction, redshift is caused by the slowing down of time not the expansion of space.
QUOTE (Ewol+Jun 25 2012, 05:45 PM)
Still no replies.
Model predicts Blackholes are holes in time not space.
Take Supermassive BHs the so called singularity at the center is the starting point of the galaxy surrounding it, the diameter, I think, is relative to the age of the galaxy. In other words the larger the BH the older the galaxy.
Another prediction, redshift is caused by the slowing down of time not the expansion of space.
Er?
It seems Ewol's brain's gone Awol.
Model predicts Blackholes are holes in time not space.
Take Supermassive BHs the so called singularity at the center is the starting point of the galaxy surrounding it, the diameter, I think, is relative to the age of the galaxy. In other words the larger the BH the older the galaxy.
Another prediction, redshift is caused by the slowing down of time not the expansion of space.
Er? It seems Ewol's brain's gone Awol.
QUOTE (mik+Jun 1 2012, 06:29 PM)
A brief review of elementary geometry:
A point is a locus with no dimension.
A line is one dimensional.
A plane is two dimensional... (two axes) often called "length and width."
A volume is three dimensional... (three axes) add "height."
Time is the duration, often called "elapsed time" for anything and everything to move around in 3-D space, on a 2-D plane, or along a 1-D line. Of course the elapsed time between "ticks" of a clock can vary with its specific environment, like traveling at faster or slower velocity or deeper into a gravity well, but that doesn't make time into an entity through which one can travel.
That looks spot on . Relatively close to reality. The Information that travels through time is more entity like. Not that it is but it carries the information of entities that manifest . So is it or is it not when it boils down to it . If a set of codes creates, is the code it self a fixture or an object . Like a dependable mathematical equation being called a mathematical object . Or like fancy names given to computer codes like C++ or any other garden verity . Is that an object ? C++ is that an object ? Are forms of communication Objects that transverse time by there codes ?
A point is a locus with no dimension.
A line is one dimensional.
A plane is two dimensional... (two axes) often called "length and width."
A volume is three dimensional... (three axes) add "height."
Time is the duration, often called "elapsed time" for anything and everything to move around in 3-D space, on a 2-D plane, or along a 1-D line. Of course the elapsed time between "ticks" of a clock can vary with its specific environment, like traveling at faster or slower velocity or deeper into a gravity well, but that doesn't make time into an entity through which one can travel.
That looks spot on . Relatively close to reality. The Information that travels through time is more entity like. Not that it is but it carries the information of entities that manifest . So is it or is it not when it boils down to it . If a set of codes creates, is the code it self a fixture or an object . Like a dependable mathematical equation being called a mathematical object . Or like fancy names given to computer codes like C++ or any other garden verity . Is that an object ? C++ is that an object ? Are forms of communication Objects that transverse time by there codes ?
Have just finnished Hawkings Grand Design for the second time. First time interesting and impressed, this time still impressive amount of knowledge but concern and amusement with the conclusions based on that knowledge, as its only 2 years old am I led to believe that that is where all you educated people out there are really at. A BB where all you see in the universe is compressed into less than a proton, please explain how to fit 2 electrons into the same space let alone everything else, space that miraculously appears out of nowhere causing expansion, dark matter that no-one can see, dark energy to patch up another hole , strange energy that causes inflation then dissappears to who knows where and now rumours of dark magnetism maybe the dark lord will make an appearance, how many more miraculous patches to come untill someone says maybe theres a simpler explaination not to mention little vibrating strings in 10 dimensions.
Can you say all this is plausible while keeping a straight face and you say my brains gone AWOL. Please convince me why I should believe the above when all you need is basic relativity and E=hf.
You are trying to explain illusions with science.
Finally, for the moment, where does all the energy in the universe come from Re the law of conservation of energy answer the law was not applicable at the BB well there's a surprise.
Can you say all this is plausible while keeping a straight face and you say my brains gone AWOL. Please convince me why I should believe the above when all you need is basic relativity and E=hf.
You are trying to explain illusions with science.
Finally, for the moment, where does all the energy in the universe come from Re the law of conservation of energy answer the law was not applicable at the BB well there's a surprise.
Nobody got the 3rd dimension problem. Looks like I will have to tell you.
Everything, without exception, you see is in the past, it takes time for the information to reach you, the further away the further back in time, once in the past things are locked in time, the brain interprets this time differential as distance the same way it rotates what you see 180 degrees to make it the right way up, the information when it gets to your eyes is essentially a 2 dimensional wall of EM radiation known as light, no time no 3rd dimension. This of course is the classical view. The dual slit experiment however proves that there is a 3rd dimension of space which we will call the present, I am surprised that none of you brought this up to prove me wrong. This of course leads to another explaination for the CMB.
I will accept appologies and am still waiting for explainations for the points I brought up regarding your theory.
I make another prediction - The silence will be deafening because the theory is indefensible.
Everything, without exception, you see is in the past, it takes time for the information to reach you, the further away the further back in time, once in the past things are locked in time, the brain interprets this time differential as distance the same way it rotates what you see 180 degrees to make it the right way up, the information when it gets to your eyes is essentially a 2 dimensional wall of EM radiation known as light, no time no 3rd dimension. This of course is the classical view. The dual slit experiment however proves that there is a 3rd dimension of space which we will call the present, I am surprised that none of you brought this up to prove me wrong. This of course leads to another explaination for the CMB.
I will accept appologies and am still waiting for explainations for the points I brought up regarding your theory.
I make another prediction - The silence will be deafening because the theory is indefensible.
Correction to the last post the 3rd dimension of space is more likely to be what we call the future. I notice no argument against my explaination so can I take it as accepted?
I have defended my statement, is there anyone out there who can defend the current BB model and the patchwork that makes it up.
There are other things I can explain and join together that current models cannot do and that is just the bare bones of an idea unfortunately it needs fleshing out which at this time is beyond me.
I can see the difference between the classical and quantum worlds and how they interact and how they ultimately lead to God, I know why the figures in current theories dont always add up, I dont understand why science has the attitude if it dont fit ignore it the theory cant be wrong. It has been said only those prepared to admit they are wrong are capable of learning.
It is unlikely that you will understand or accept any of my thoughts as they are obviously wrong because they have been thought by the wrong person.
Carry on with things you dont understand correctly and there will likely be unforseen problems with a high energy experiment at some point in time, when that time comes I will explain what happened.
I have defended my statement, is there anyone out there who can defend the current BB model and the patchwork that makes it up.
There are other things I can explain and join together that current models cannot do and that is just the bare bones of an idea unfortunately it needs fleshing out which at this time is beyond me.
I can see the difference between the classical and quantum worlds and how they interact and how they ultimately lead to God, I know why the figures in current theories dont always add up, I dont understand why science has the attitude if it dont fit ignore it the theory cant be wrong. It has been said only those prepared to admit they are wrong are capable of learning.
It is unlikely that you will understand or accept any of my thoughts as they are obviously wrong because they have been thought by the wrong person.
Carry on with things you dont understand correctly and there will likely be unforseen problems with a high energy experiment at some point in time, when that time comes I will explain what happened.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.