I wonder if there is such a thing as Maximum Time?
A companion question to: How fast is time? is If time stopped how long would it stop for?
Proper time is not a timerate at all but the appearence of your time from your perspective. If your clock is running slower than anothers you can break the appearence of proper time by a simple comparison. If you are traveling rapidly through space your clock will be running slow. All you have to do is look at something that is not moving as fast through space and you will see it(they) will have a fast clock compared to yours.
I wonder if there is such a thing as Maximum Time?
A companion question to: How fast is time? is If time stopped how long would it stop for?
I wonder if there is such a thing as Maximum Time?
A companion question to: How fast is time? is If time stopped how long would it stop for?
QUOTE (Nick+Jun 6 2006, 10:46 PM)
A companion question to: How fast is time? is If time stopped how long would it stop for?
The answer depends on the time type. We can consider radiation, thermodynamical, cosmological or psychological time arrows.
The probably most general answer can be, the speed of time is proportional to Universe density.
The answer depends on the time type. We can consider radiation, thermodynamical, cosmological or psychological time arrows.
The probably most general answer can be, the speed of time is proportional to Universe density.
QUOTE
All you have to do is look at something that is not moving as fast through space and you will see it(they) will have a fast clock compared to yours.
If you were moving relative to someone else, they would actually have a slow clock compared to yours, since you are justified in saying that you are at rest and they are in motion. I guess the real only "proper time" would be if you were traveling at the speed of light - you would not experience the passing of time at all. Everything would just "exist" - past present and future combined. As to "how fast is time?", time doesn't "move", it is a dimension. We are the ones who move through time. Everyone moves through time at different speeds, depending on how fast they are moving through space. The faster you move through space, the slower you move through time. Eventually, if you reach the speed of light (through space) you are not moving through time at all.
Relativity teaches us that every object move at the speed of light (wait before crying foul, the complete explanation follows). Indeed, the four-velocity vector is a vector tangent to the world line of a particle and of unit length (which is 'c' in SR). But, since a particle always observe its worldline from its MCRF (momentarily comoving referential frame), it means that relative to itself, its four-velocity is completely oriented in the time direction. This means that relative to yourself, you are moving at the speed of light in the time direction. Since this vector is always of unit length, an object near you that moves in space has to give a bit of it's velocity in time to its velocity in space, this is why you perceive its clock to be slower (and vice versa, the object also perceive your time to be slower).
Photons, on the other hand, moves at 'c' in space relative to ALL objects (we call their trajectories 'null path'). So relative to you, the photon's clock is simply stopped (and relative to the photon, your clock is stopped). Also, if we take into account the Lorentz contraction of space, the distance traveled by a photon is always zero in its own referential. Thus, from the photon's point of view, the distance between a distant star and your eye is zero and the travel time is instantaneous.
Photons, on the other hand, moves at 'c' in space relative to ALL objects (we call their trajectories 'null path'). So relative to you, the photon's clock is simply stopped (and relative to the photon, your clock is stopped). Also, if we take into account the Lorentz contraction of space, the distance traveled by a photon is always zero in its own referential. Thus, from the photon's point of view, the distance between a distant star and your eye is zero and the travel time is instantaneous.
When the station comes to the train?
That's Einstein.
But the station is not moving through Earth's space so its clock will not be observed to go slow.
That's Einstein.
But the station is not moving through Earth's space so its clock will not be observed to go slow.
I think the whole concept of time dilation due to motion is a mistake. If the object is approaching you, you will see its time as being sped up. If the object is receding, you will see its time as being slowed down. When the object is at rest with respect to you, you will see its time as going normal. The only time the object actually slows down with respect to you is if it feels the force of inertia, meaning that it is undergoing acceleration.
QUOTE (cefarix+Jun 7 2006, 09:30 AM)
The only time the object actually slows down with respect to you is if it feels the force of inertia, meaning that it is undergoing acceleration.
I know, it appears logical - but this is exactly, what's incorrect on such model.
Both by relativity theory, both by experiments the time dilatation is proportional to the time integral of relative speed difference. It means, you can experience a relatively large relativistic time shift, if you're moving by the low speed during sufficiently prolonged time.
I know, it appears logical - but this is exactly, what's incorrect on such model.
Both by relativity theory, both by experiments the time dilatation is proportional to the time integral of relative speed difference. It means, you can experience a relatively large relativistic time shift, if you're moving by the low speed during sufficiently prolonged time.
That's because after you've accelerated you have higher energy. The higher energy you have, the slower proper time you experience.
QUOTE (Nick+Jun 6 2006, 02:46 PM)
A companion question to: How fast is time? is If time stopped how long would it stop for?
As long as the object is traveling at the speed of light.
As long as the object is traveling at the speed of light.
QUOTE (Dr Brettmann+)
Photons, on the other hand, moves at 'c' in space relative to ALL objects (we call their trajectories 'null path'). So relative to you, the photon's clock is simply stopped (and relative to the photon, your clock is stopped). Also, if we take into account the Lorentz contraction of space, the distance traveled by a photon is always zero in its own referential. Thus, from the photon's point of view, the distance between a distant star and your eye is zero and the travel time is instantaneous.
More explanation if possible please ..
Feynman's sum over paths trick seems to imply a photon changes state 'in flight' .. so it would seem photons are having 'time'. Likewise the dreaded circular polarisation.. I don't know but I strongly suspect there are exchanges of energy going on 'in flight'. We seem to find peaks and troughs in EM standing waves which give the impression of a wavelength in time/distance.
If real light travelled just a touch slower than 'c' I could understand all this.. but as far as I know it really goes at relativistic 'c'.
-C2.
QUOTE (555Joshua+Jun 7 2006, 12:25 PM)
QUOTE (Nick+Jun 6 2006, 02:46 PM)
A companion question to: How fast is time? is If time stopped how long would it stop for?
As long as the object is traveling at the speed of light.
What object can travel at light speed? Only light. And light has its own clock: 186282 miles per second. Light clock is gravitational in that the only thing that can slow it down is gravity.
Therefore, while no time passes for a photon, it's electromagnetic structure still waves in time. Not the time of the photon, but the time of the observer.
Many thanks .. please assume you are dealing with a complete idiot here. I can only see it as "if no time then no time for change" from any viewpoint.. you could certainly miss a change that has happened but I don't understand seeing a change that hasn't happened. Where am I going wrong (if possible to state within forum rules)?
-C2.
Therefore, while no time passes for a photon, it's electromagnetic structure still waves in time. Not the time of the photon, but the time of the observer.
Many thanks .. please assume you are dealing with a complete idiot here. I can only see it as "if no time then no time for change" from any viewpoint.. you could certainly miss a change that has happened but I don't understand seeing a change that hasn't happened. Where am I going wrong (if possible to state within forum rules)?
-C2.
You see, electromagnetic waves are always undergoing change. The change has to be measured by a scale of time and space . The scale of time and space that is used is (obviously) that of the one who is observing, a.k.a. the frame of reference.
Now, what does it mean when we say that the photon experiences zero proper time? It means that in our frame of reference, we saw the photon travel for a certain time or a certain distance. A certain time interval elapsed for us. But in a frame of reference attached with the photon, zero time has passed. From the perspective of the photon, the universe is a completely different place. Light in our frame is mass in that frame, and vice-versa, roughly speaking.
How do we see the electromagnetic waves vibrating if zero time passes for the photon? That's because the electromagnetic waves making up the photon exist in our frame of reference, and as such, they behave according to the time of our frame.
The probably most general answer can be, the speed of time is proportional to Universe density.
Someone who is in agreement; the rate at which time flows varies according to the gravitational field in which it is measured. In an earlier denser universe time would have passed more slowly than it does today.
As long as the object is traveling at the speed of light.
What object can travel at light speed? Only light. And light has its own clock: 186282 miles per second. Light clock is gravitational in that the only thing that can slow it down is gravity.
But light never ages, thus, you could say its biological clock stops.
Looking at http://teachingphysics.iop.org/teacher_sup...ves/tap324.html we see an experiment involving a microwave oven and a piece of processed cheese. The wavelength of the microwaves can be deduced from looking at the spacing between the cooked bits and the non-cooked bits of cheese. It appears the microwave is 'different' at different distances from the source.. we are fairly sure light travels at 'c' so it would seem the differences are related to time as well as distance... my conclusion is that the wave changes with time... can it do this if it experiences no 'time'?
-C2.
-C2.
I think one important thing that should be cleared up is proper time and the observer's time. Proper time is the time experienced by the object being observed. But you need to measure it against something, just like you measure speed against a reference, or distance against a reference point. Remember that this is because both space and time are relative. The reference point for time is the time of the observer. Therefore, while no time passes for a photon, it's electromagnetic structure still waves in time. Not the time of the photon, but the time of the observer.
QUOTE (cefarix+)
Therefore, while no time passes for a photon, it's electromagnetic structure still waves in time. Not the time of the photon, but the time of the observer.
Many thanks .. please assume you are dealing with a complete idiot here. I can only see it as "if no time then no time for change" from any viewpoint.. you could certainly miss a change that has happened but I don't understand seeing a change that hasn't happened. Where am I going wrong (if possible to state within forum rules)?
-C2.
QUOTE (555Joshua+Jun 8 2006, 01:35 PM)
But light never ages, thus, you could say its biological clock stops.
It does age in a sense. It's light's frequency. Its renewed every cycle.
It does age in a sense. It's light's frequency. Its renewed every cycle.
QUOTE (Confused2+Jun 8 2006, 08:15 PM)
QUOTE (cefarix+)
Therefore, while no time passes for a photon, it's electromagnetic structure still waves in time. Not the time of the photon, but the time of the observer.
Many thanks .. please assume you are dealing with a complete idiot here. I can only see it as "if no time then no time for change" from any viewpoint.. you could certainly miss a change that has happened but I don't understand seeing a change that hasn't happened. Where am I going wrong (if possible to state within forum rules)?
-C2.
You see, electromagnetic waves are always undergoing change. The change has to be measured by a scale of time and space . The scale of time and space that is used is (obviously) that of the one who is observing, a.k.a. the frame of reference.
Now, what does it mean when we say that the photon experiences zero proper time? It means that in our frame of reference, we saw the photon travel for a certain time or a certain distance. A certain time interval elapsed for us. But in a frame of reference attached with the photon, zero time has passed. From the perspective of the photon, the universe is a completely different place. Light in our frame is mass in that frame, and vice-versa, roughly speaking.
How do we see the electromagnetic waves vibrating if zero time passes for the photon? That's because the electromagnetic waves making up the photon exist in our frame of reference, and as such, they behave according to the time of our frame.
Many thanks for your answer, I'm still not 'with it' .. I think it would be tedious for others if I asked for further clarification here..
I started a topic called 'Half a theory..' .. the present discussion bears heavily on the 'other half' .. the first half is negotiable, it just happens to be the best way I have found to make any sense of things.
Topic starts at ..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=96352
I have already updated the tail to reflect my present level of lack of understanding of this point.
-C2.
I started a topic called 'Half a theory..' .. the present discussion bears heavily on the 'other half' .. the first half is negotiable, it just happens to be the best way I have found to make any sense of things.
Topic starts at ..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=96352
I have already updated the tail to reflect my present level of lack of understanding of this point.
-C2.
Time does pass for the photon ie its frequency.
Light has its own clock. It is gravitational. Slow time in gravity slows light.
Light has its own clock. It is gravitational. Slow time in gravity slows light.
tıme enters into existence when we start measuring it
in the unıverse there is only motıon into a-temporal space
by measuring duratıon of motion time appears
time ıs of the mind
motion is of the universe
in the unıverse there is only motıon into a-temporal space
by measuring duratıon of motion time appears
time ıs of the mind
motion is of the universe
The apparent 'time' fluctuations of a photon in flight could be explained by suggesting that each invidual photon does not experience time and the observed wave effect is simply a result of the way photon emission at the source varies with time. This rather destroys most of EM theory though.
C2.
C2.
Light has its own clock.
nıck you do not understand basic regarding time subject
motion of light is a-temporal
time entres into existence when we start measuring it
time is a human dymension
no time exists into the universe
universe is an a-temporal phenomena
motion of light is a-temporal
time entres into existence when we start measuring it
time is a human dymension
no time exists into the universe
universe is an a-temporal phenomena
Hello all
The photon is massless so it can't develop a "time field" from its velocity. However it can be affected by time gradients around mass. Also, as far as I know, the "time field" developed from mass at relativistic speeds does not affect the photon's velocity.
The photon is massless so it can't develop a "time field" from its velocity. However it can be affected by time gradients around mass. Also, as far as I know, the "time field" developed from mass at relativistic speeds does not affect the photon's velocity.
Light has a rate of change or frequency. It waves. Sorry but you cannot divorce time from light.
nick light has a content speed and moves into a-temporal space
we measure with clocks duration of light motion into a-temporal space
we experience motion of light into time that is a mind frame
we measure with clocks duration of light motion into a-temporal space
we experience motion of light into time that is a mind frame
Einstein and Godel have been working on time for 20 years in Princeton.
They came to conclusion that in the universe there is no time.
at that point their research stops.
How to proceed
1. about existence of the motion one can not doubt, motion is evident
2. if there is no time in the universe motion happens into space only and not in time
3. space is a-temporal in sense that there is no time running into space
4. with clocks we measure duration of motion into a-temporal space
5. time is a mind frame into which we experience motion
this are conclusions of my 17 years research on the subject of time
the concept of space-time is developed into the concept of a-temporal space
motion is physıcal
time is of the mind
They came to conclusion that in the universe there is no time.
at that point their research stops.
How to proceed
1. about existence of the motion one can not doubt, motion is evident
2. if there is no time in the universe motion happens into space only and not in time
3. space is a-temporal in sense that there is no time running into space
4. with clocks we measure duration of motion into a-temporal space
5. time is a mind frame into which we experience motion
this are conclusions of my 17 years research on the subject of time
the concept of space-time is developed into the concept of a-temporal space
motion is physıcal
time is of the mind
QUOTE (Guest_amrit+Jun 26 2006, 08:41 AM)
Einstein and Godel have been working on time for 20 years in Princeton. They came to conclusion that in the universe there is no time at that point their research stops.
What does it means "time exists"? The time concept is abstract quantity, like the energy, force, momentum or acceleration. Without such quantities the contemporary physic is unthinkable, as they're playing a fundamental role in deriving of equations and in understanding of physical laws dependencies.
The time cannot be observed in the nature visually like other phenomenas, but it can be perceived by our senses as the force or pressure. Many creatures or even living cells are having a biological clock built-in for timing of chemical processes by the same way, like the force of pressure sensors. So we can say, the existence of time doesn't depend on our consciousness, and it's part of objective reality used by nature evolution.
By Aether Wave Theory the existence of time is closely related with the inertia concept, i.e. the ability of system resists to acceleration. The inertial system requires some time to introduce it into motion, thus occupying some space. I suppose, the origin of time is related to entropic processes involving the gradient fluctuations, like the diffusion in system of particles, which requires some time despite of the inertia of such particles. It means, the origin of inertia and time is related to limited diffusion speed in large system of chaotic non-inertial fluctuations.
What does it means "time exists"? The time concept is abstract quantity, like the energy, force, momentum or acceleration. Without such quantities the contemporary physic is unthinkable, as they're playing a fundamental role in deriving of equations and in understanding of physical laws dependencies.
The time cannot be observed in the nature visually like other phenomenas, but it can be perceived by our senses as the force or pressure. Many creatures or even living cells are having a biological clock built-in for timing of chemical processes by the same way, like the force of pressure sensors. So we can say, the existence of time doesn't depend on our consciousness, and it's part of objective reality used by nature evolution.
By Aether Wave Theory the existence of time is closely related with the inertia concept, i.e. the ability of system resists to acceleration. The inertial system requires some time to introduce it into motion, thus occupying some space. I suppose, the origin of time is related to entropic processes involving the gradient fluctuations, like the diffusion in system of particles, which requires some time despite of the inertia of such particles. It means, the origin of inertia and time is related to limited diffusion speed in large system of chaotic non-inertial fluctuations.
What is this quality called Time where its passing can slow down?
zephir
The time cannot be observed in the nature visually like other phenomenas, but it can be perceived by our senses as the force or pressure.
amrit
yes zephir thats great
for you time is a kind of force that pushes the universe ahead
thats really funny
you have no idea about time
sorry but that is it
The time cannot be observed in the nature visually like other phenomenas, but it can be perceived by our senses as the force or pressure.
amrit
yes zephir thats great
for you time is a kind of force that pushes the universe ahead
thats really funny
you have no idea about time
sorry but that is it
QUOTE (Nick+Jun 26 2006, 09:34 PM)
What is this quality called Time where its passing can slow down?
The inertia of environment, i.e. the mass/energy density of Aether. The time is the distance of convoluted space filled by diffusion gradient. The time means, somewhere at a quite fundamental level you're waiting on leveling of some gradient concentration, enriched by consecutive phase transitions. This is probably what we are calling the inertia.
Without inertia all physical processes would proceed by the infinite speed, i.e. with no time at all. Currently just the diffusion is the only physical process by my knowledge, which requires some time without insintric inertia inside of system. Such diffusion is solely matter of space geometry.
Maybe you know the time delay trigger for underwater mines, formed by sugar cube, separating the electrical contacts. When the sugar dissolves, the switch triggers the explosion..
The interesting point is, the trigger delay doesn't depend on the sugar density, just on the relative speed of water and sugar molecules. The gravity has nothing to do with such process and no obvious energy is released during sugar dissolution (if we'll neglect the hydratation of suggar molecules and some other subtle effects).
This is a way, how to create delay both for bomb, both for Big Bang and the human civilization evolution.
The inertia of environment, i.e. the mass/energy density of Aether. The time is the distance of convoluted space filled by diffusion gradient. The time means, somewhere at a quite fundamental level you're waiting on leveling of some gradient concentration, enriched by consecutive phase transitions. This is probably what we are calling the inertia.
Without inertia all physical processes would proceed by the infinite speed, i.e. with no time at all. Currently just the diffusion is the only physical process by my knowledge, which requires some time without insintric inertia inside of system. Such diffusion is solely matter of space geometry.
Maybe you know the time delay trigger for underwater mines, formed by sugar cube, separating the electrical contacts. When the sugar dissolves, the switch triggers the explosion..
The interesting point is, the trigger delay doesn't depend on the sugar density, just on the relative speed of water and sugar molecules. The gravity has nothing to do with such process and no obvious energy is released during sugar dissolution (if we'll neglect the hydratation of suggar molecules and some other subtle effects).
This is a way, how to create delay both for bomb, both for Big Bang and the human civilization evolution.
QUOTE (Dr. Brettmann+Jun 7 2006, 03:40 AM)
Relativity teaches us that every object move at the speed of light (wait before crying foul, the complete explanation follows). Indeed, the four-velocity vector is a vector tangent to the world line of a particle and of unit length (which is 'c' in SR). But, since a particle always observe its worldline from its MCRF (momentarily comoving referential frame), it means that relative to itself, its four-velocity is completely oriented in the time direction. This means that relative to yourself, you are moving at the speed of light in the time direction. Since this vector is always of unit length, an object near you that moves in space has to give a bit of it's velocity in time to its velocity in space, this is why you perceive its clock to be slower (and vice versa, the object also perceive your time to be slower).
Photons, on the other hand, moves at 'c' in space relative to ALL objects (we call their trajectories 'null path'). So relative to you, the photon's clock is simply stopped (and relative to the photon, your clock is stopped). Also, if we take into account the Lorentz contraction of space, the distance traveled by a photon is always zero in its own referential. Thus, from the photon's point of view, the distance between a distant star and your eye is zero and the travel time is instantaneous.
Everything moves at the speed of light through time?
Like light matter wouldn't age.
Am I missing something?
Photons, on the other hand, moves at 'c' in space relative to ALL objects (we call their trajectories 'null path'). So relative to you, the photon's clock is simply stopped (and relative to the photon, your clock is stopped). Also, if we take into account the Lorentz contraction of space, the distance traveled by a photon is always zero in its own referential. Thus, from the photon's point of view, the distance between a distant star and your eye is zero and the travel time is instantaneous.
Everything moves at the speed of light through time?
Like light matter wouldn't age.
Am I missing something?
Time is the same for all observers. One minute for me at 99.996% of speed of light i will age just the same as one minute in front of my computer. Therefore, time flows at the rate of 1 second per second.
Time goes with 1sec / 300.000km.
QUOTE (rudeman+Jun 28 2006, 08:58 PM)
Time goes with 1sec / 300.000km.
If time is a moving and dynamic dimension it might be possible to catch up to it. It would be moving at c; at the speed of light from all directions 3 dimensionally. This kind of time can flow. And by speeding up it will slow.
If time is a moving and dynamic dimension it might be possible to catch up to it. It would be moving at c; at the speed of light from all directions 3 dimensionally. This kind of time can flow. And by speeding up it will slow.
1 physical time is motion
2 motion of light has a constant speed
3 speed of all other motion depends on the gravitation
4 with clocks we measure speed and duration of motion
2 motion of light has a constant speed
3 speed of all other motion depends on the gravitation
4 with clocks we measure speed and duration of motion
Why is it that if you reached light speed time would stop? Could this mean that time moves at the speed of light and you could catch up to it?
time is material change
photon movement into space is material change - time
the speed of material change will slow in a faster inertial system and in stronger gravity light excluded, light movement (light time) is invariant regarding inertial systems and gravity
photon movement into space is material change - time
the speed of material change will slow in a faster inertial system and in stronger gravity light excluded, light movement (light time) is invariant regarding inertial systems and gravity
A POEM:
time is accelerating.
because time is a function of mind.
and mind is increasing exponentially, according to moore's law.
i personally believe everything already exists as a potential geometry, and mind takes a 'point of view' through that matrix.
physicists almost always ignore mind as a real fo/arce.
and yet, we know that the world is at least partially shaped by mind, from ameoba to coral to termite mound to beaver dam to human skyscraper.
these, of course, are the changes effected by small minds, and the mysteries of the function of larger minds and their works cannot be known to us (well, SOME of us, anyways...ie. those with closed minds).
time is accelerating.
because time is a function of mind.
and mind is increasing exponentially, according to moore's law.
i personally believe everything already exists as a potential geometry, and mind takes a 'point of view' through that matrix.
physicists almost always ignore mind as a real fo/arce.
and yet, we know that the world is at least partially shaped by mind, from ameoba to coral to termite mound to beaver dam to human skyscraper.
these, of course, are the changes effected by small minds, and the mysteries of the function of larger minds and their works cannot be known to us (well, SOME of us, anyways...ie. those with closed minds).
QUOTE (newton+Sep 6 2006, 09:59 AM)
A POEM:. time is accelerating, because time is a function of mind...
The funny thing is, the Amrit is using the literar form of mantra instead of argument(s), too.
Even the statement "because time is a function of mind" is reincarnation of the older Amrit statement: "time is in human mind only".
Are you an alter ego of Amrit?
The funny thing is, the Amrit is using the literar form of mantra instead of argument(s), too.
Even the statement "because time is a function of mind" is reincarnation of the older Amrit statement: "time is in human mind only".
Are you an alter ego of Amrit?
QUOTE (Zephir+Jun 6 2006, 09:11 PM)
The probably most general answer can be, the speed of time is proportional to Universe density.
Someone who is in agreement; the rate at which time flows varies according to the gravitational field in which it is measured. In an earlier denser universe time would have passed more slowly than it does today.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 6 2006, 10:27 AM)
The funny thing is, the Amrit is using the literar form of mantra instead of argument(s), too.
Even the statement "because time is a function of mind" is reincarnation of the older Amrit statement: "time is in human mind only".
Are you an alter ego of Amrit?
no.
i was just tryingto throw a monkey wrench(or 'spanner'), into the works.
however, if the universe is expanding, then space is expanding/strecthing, and more space equals less gravity, and less gravity equals faster time.
this topic boggles my mind, which is slowing down as i get older.
i mean, if you get smaller falling into a black hole, then do you also get smaller on a bigger denser planet than earth? or say, if you're in a fighter jet expriencing 2 Gs?
i cannot understand time without understanding gravity,and i simply don't get it.
i've read theories, and i've seen NASA send probes into space with dead-eye accuracy, so certain effects of gravity are well understood.
but, i have a hard time understanding what happens in the middle of a giant sphere, be it a planet or black hole.
wouldn't gravity have to be weaker in the very centre where it changes directions?
i don't 'get' the centre, so i don't get the concept.
i do 'get' 'weak force', but i can't 'see it'. it doesn't seem weak, and if density of matter means more gravity, how can there be a middle? what is it that allows such amazing crushing forces to exist side by side in opposite directions?
gravity seems to be more of a shape to me, than a force.
and so, if i'm right about that(not saying i am, as i'm just riffing on 'word physics', with no mathematical basis, other than the math of the people i base 'my' loose theories on), then what is the cause of these shapes? and, what's in the very pinpoint middle?
i think at that 'point', something has to be different.
however, time has no beginning, and no end, and it is 'measured' by rate of change of molecular activity, which in turn, seems to be a function of gravity.
and yet, that is a function of our perception, because rate itself is a function of time, and we are 'stuck' in a fairly static rate of time. oops. there it is again. 'rate' being the only word i can think of to describe the 'density' of 'time'.
what do you think? am i still Amrit?
at maximun entropy, universe wide, would things REALLY be able to 'stand still'?
i am 'happier' with things that cycle, than with things that start and finish.
so, in my simplest of minds, i think everything pushed to it's extreme folds into it's opposite.
for time, that would mean, timeless.
what is timeless?
light, maybe? gravity?
i dunno. i don't want to 'argue' my 'mantra'. i just get curious what other people think of these things that i percieve as 'problems' which haven't been answered.
Even the statement "because time is a function of mind" is reincarnation of the older Amrit statement: "time is in human mind only".
Are you an alter ego of Amrit?
no.
i was just tryingto throw a monkey wrench(or 'spanner'), into the works.
however, if the universe is expanding, then space is expanding/strecthing, and more space equals less gravity, and less gravity equals faster time.
this topic boggles my mind, which is slowing down as i get older.
i mean, if you get smaller falling into a black hole, then do you also get smaller on a bigger denser planet than earth? or say, if you're in a fighter jet expriencing 2 Gs?
i cannot understand time without understanding gravity,and i simply don't get it.
i've read theories, and i've seen NASA send probes into space with dead-eye accuracy, so certain effects of gravity are well understood.
but, i have a hard time understanding what happens in the middle of a giant sphere, be it a planet or black hole.
wouldn't gravity have to be weaker in the very centre where it changes directions?
i don't 'get' the centre, so i don't get the concept.
i do 'get' 'weak force', but i can't 'see it'. it doesn't seem weak, and if density of matter means more gravity, how can there be a middle? what is it that allows such amazing crushing forces to exist side by side in opposite directions?
gravity seems to be more of a shape to me, than a force.
and so, if i'm right about that(not saying i am, as i'm just riffing on 'word physics', with no mathematical basis, other than the math of the people i base 'my' loose theories on), then what is the cause of these shapes? and, what's in the very pinpoint middle?
i think at that 'point', something has to be different.
however, time has no beginning, and no end, and it is 'measured' by rate of change of molecular activity, which in turn, seems to be a function of gravity.
and yet, that is a function of our perception, because rate itself is a function of time, and we are 'stuck' in a fairly static rate of time. oops. there it is again. 'rate' being the only word i can think of to describe the 'density' of 'time'.
what do you think? am i still Amrit?
at maximun entropy, universe wide, would things REALLY be able to 'stand still'?
i am 'happier' with things that cycle, than with things that start and finish.
so, in my simplest of minds, i think everything pushed to it's extreme folds into it's opposite.
for time, that would mean, timeless.
what is timeless?
light, maybe? gravity?
i dunno. i don't want to 'argue' my 'mantra'. i just get curious what other people think of these things that i percieve as 'problems' which haven't been answered.
Less gravity equals faster time. Is right on. If time can slow down then it must have a starting point or fastest time from which to depart. Less motion also equals faster time.
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.