I have previously made many postings on this forum, proposing that "TIME" itself does have a fundamental influence within the construction of the universe.
Some of us prefer the comfort of viewing TIME as an abstract concept and chose to ignor the TIME DILATION effect and dodge questions on quantum weirdness.
However, when we do view TIME as a very really part of the universe, maybe we can see the missing piece of the puzzle...
QUOTE
NEVERDRY Posted on Today at 8:22 PM However, when we do view TIME as a very really part of the universe, maybe we can see the missing piece of the puzzle...
the missing piece may also be found if time is considered to be emergent rather than an absolute feature.
quantum weirdness in what sense ? eg spooky action at a distance may be partially resolved if space and time between the 2 "separated" objects is an illusion in our perception ie there is no separation between certain characteristics or processes under certain conditions, we percieve there is.
QUOTE (NEVERDRY+Jun 26 2007, 10:22 AM)
I have previously made many postings on this forum, proposing that "TIME" itself does have a fundamental influence within the construction of the universe.
Some of us prefer the comfort of viewing TIME as an abstract concept and chose to ignor the TIME DILATION effect and dodge questions on quantum weirdness.
However, when we do view TIME as a very really part of the universe, maybe we can see the missing piece of the puzzle...
Ummm.....I hate to tell you this, but people already know that time is "a very really part of the universe".
Special Relativity answers the question of time dilation by saying that space and time are a single four - dimensional entity. As for "dodging questions on quantum weirdness"...well, do you have a better explanation for it?
Some of us prefer the comfort of viewing TIME as an abstract concept and chose to ignor the TIME DILATION effect and dodge questions on quantum weirdness.
However, when we do view TIME as a very really part of the universe, maybe we can see the missing piece of the puzzle...
Ummm.....I hate to tell you this, but people already know that time is "a very really part of the universe".
Special Relativity answers the question of time dilation by saying that space and time are a single four - dimensional entity. As for "dodging questions on quantum weirdness"...well, do you have a better explanation for it?
Well, I've heard many theories concerning time... One being that time is totally a conscious creation. I agree with that [to some extent]. For instence, QM and RT indicate that there is no reality without the perception of reality. Thus is there a time without the perception, or duration of a time?
Time seems to be an illusion at best, created by those who can precieve time. However, with that aside, i would like to note that accordingto relativity theory, you cannot move through space without passing into the vector of time... Unless of course, you are a zero-time particle, like the photon... But even that last answer is shrouded in controversy, simply because it depends on the observer.
If you are traveling along through space at ''c'', you will experience absolutely no dimensions at all... You would inexorably be traveling through nothing... No space, and thus if relativity theory is correct, absolutely no time at all.
NeoNo.1
Time seems to be an illusion at best, created by those who can precieve time. However, with that aside, i would like to note that accordingto relativity theory, you cannot move through space without passing into the vector of time... Unless of course, you are a zero-time particle, like the photon... But even that last answer is shrouded in controversy, simply because it depends on the observer.
If you are traveling along through space at ''c'', you will experience absolutely no dimensions at all... You would inexorably be traveling through nothing... No space, and thus if relativity theory is correct, absolutely no time at all.
NeoNo.1
[you will experience absolutely no dimensions at all... You would inexorably be traveling through nothing... No space, and thus if relativity theory is correct, absolutely no time at all]
Even if you were traveling at the speed of light, wouldn't everything seem normal to you from your frame of reference?
Even if you were traveling at the speed of light, wouldn't everything seem normal to you from your frame of reference?
Well, i doubt consciousness would work... Though, according to leading theory, everything around you would totally hault.
NeoNo.1
Isn't it a relative thing? Like, let's just say our planet (which of course is not), but let's just say it's hurling toward the outer edges of the universe at a speed approaching the speed of light. Wouldn't life for us on the planet just go on as usual? Now I would assume that for someone seeing us whiz by - that we might appear to be more or less frozen in time, but for us?
QUOTE
Well, i doubt consciousness would work... Though, according to leading theory, everything around you would totally hault.
Isn't it a relative thing? Like, let's just say our planet (which of course is not), but let's just say it's hurling toward the outer edges of the universe at a speed approaching the speed of light. Wouldn't life for us on the planet just go on as usual? Now I would assume that for someone seeing us whiz by - that we might appear to be more or less frozen in time, but for us?
The time is a fourth-dimension of the space,it is curved into the movement;thence
appear the spacetime as curvatures generated by the time,when that distort the
space in 4-dimensions.the 4-dimension of space splitted in two-subdimensions,that is the time,curving the spacetime,and twisted by two opposed rotations.then that
asymmetry create the motion,and with the derivatives of the time,the velocity.
appear the spacetime as curvatures generated by the time,when that distort the
space in 4-dimensions.the 4-dimension of space splitted in two-subdimensions,that is the time,curving the spacetime,and twisted by two opposed rotations.then that
asymmetry create the motion,and with the derivatives of the time,the velocity.
From one nut to another ..........
Two masses are attracted to each other because of mutual inductance. The velocity increase in each is created by vacuolar asymmetry, which affects all vacoules in both masses and alters the distance between vacuole perimeter and the inner spacial singularity.
At the sides of the vacoules where masses are facing each other the vacuolar perimeter to singularity to is shortened in comparison to the sides that face away. This asymmetry creates a huge problem as the incoming import field is harmonic in nature so must be fully sustained, integrity wise.
To compensate for the vacuolar warping the vacuole moves towards the source of gravity so as to balance the system. This however initiates a new problem because now both masses are closer together increasing the vacuolar warping, therefore they increase speed and so on...yes what I'm describing is acceleration!
Two masses are attracted to each other because of mutual inductance. The velocity increase in each is created by vacuolar asymmetry, which affects all vacoules in both masses and alters the distance between vacuole perimeter and the inner spacial singularity.
At the sides of the vacoules where masses are facing each other the vacuolar perimeter to singularity to is shortened in comparison to the sides that face away. This asymmetry creates a huge problem as the incoming import field is harmonic in nature so must be fully sustained, integrity wise.
To compensate for the vacuolar warping the vacuole moves towards the source of gravity so as to balance the system. This however initiates a new problem because now both masses are closer together increasing the vacuolar warping, therefore they increase speed and so on...yes what I'm describing is acceleration!
QUOTE (mott.carl+Aug 26 2007, 10:31 AM)
Hey, I was being serious!
Reversibility of disobutamide-induced clear cytoplasmic vacoules in cultured cells following withdrawal of drug
Maybe withdrawal has not happened yet?
Anyway, everyone knows that two masses are drawn to each other because of love.
(or is it that gravity sucks --- can't remember. My vacoules are over-cultured)
But, seriously,
How does one account for the field crevulation caused by the harmonic imbalance in the vacular perimeters. Won't that cause a counter effect, therby imbalancing the potobolic nature of the natural accelometic tendencies inherent in the system?
Maybe withdrawal has not happened yet?
Anyway, everyone knows that two masses are drawn to each other because of love.
(or is it that gravity sucks --- can't remember. My vacoules are over-cultured)
But, seriously,
How does one account for the field crevulation caused by the harmonic imbalance in the vacular perimeters. Won't that cause a counter effect, therby imbalancing the potobolic nature of the natural accelometic tendencies inherent in the system?
TIME IS THE 4TH DIMENSION
QUOTE (NEVERDRY+Jun 26 2007, 10:22 AM)
I have previously made many postings on this forum, proposing that "TIME" itself does have a fundamental influence within the construction of the universe.
Some of us prefer the comfort of viewing TIME as an abstract concept and chose to ignor the TIME DILATION effect and dodge questions on quantum weirdness.
However, when we do view TIME as a very really part of the universe, maybe we can see the missing piece of the puzzle...
time is numerical order of material change that run into space
Some of us prefer the comfort of viewing TIME as an abstract concept and chose to ignor the TIME DILATION effect and dodge questions on quantum weirdness.
However, when we do view TIME as a very really part of the universe, maybe we can see the missing piece of the puzzle...
time is numerical order of material change that run into space
QUOTE (amrit+Sep 13 2007, 06:54 AM)
time is numerical order of material change that run into space
And what is SPACE?
And what is SPACE?
" Special Relativity answers the question of time dilation by saying that space and time are a single four - dimensional entity "
Nice one Gehn :) Not that i don't agree, but
Time exists and none of us are free of its bounds.
If we accept the idea of four dimensions as one? what are we then??
As we perceive ourself as being able to move and alter in time and space?
Nice one Gehn :) Not that i don't agree, but
Time exists and none of us are free of its bounds.
If we accept the idea of four dimensions as one? what are we then??
As we perceive ourself as being able to move and alter in time and space?
I thought it was quite clear from Lorentz Invariance that time was a dimension, and was very similar to space. ``consciousness'' has nothing to do with it. If there were no intelligent observers in the universe, time would be exactly the same. It is just a direction on a Lorentzian manifold.
Ahh :)
You're sure?
Time and space do interact closely but as for how we perceive it, they still represent different values, don't they?
And if they are as one, what does that make all our observations, as we do them by differing space and time?? And us, as we live here???
You're sure?
Time and space do interact closely but as for how we perceive it, they still represent different values, don't they?
And if they are as one, what does that make all our observations, as we do them by differing space and time?? And us, as we live here???
QUOTE (yor_on+Sep 18 2007, 10:38 PM)
Ahh
You're sure?
Time and space do interact closely but as for how we perceive it, they still present different values, don't they?
And if they are as one, what does that make all our observations, as we do them by differing space and time??
We percieve time exactly as a classical object SHOULD percieve time.
I guess I don't really understand the question.
You're sure?
Time and space do interact closely but as for how we perceive it, they still present different values, don't they?
And if they are as one, what does that make all our observations, as we do them by differing space and time??
We percieve time exactly as a classical object SHOULD percieve time.
I guess I don't really understand the question.
Hell, neither does i :)
But i'm just curious to how we can believe that the ones measuring can be taken out of the 'equation' As in a 'objective' reality. You know, that ultimate 'gold standard' that proves it all theoretically without even once questioning what makes the measurements and theories possible. And i do believe time to be a result of space/matter and dimensions, but in the end we are the 'observers' and it's our interactions that makes our theories. And yeah, it sound somewhat like i'm a mystic now :)
To my eyes, no theory can be considered 'whole' that doesn't take into consideration the observer, and that i would call consciousness :). When you go to QM 'matter' will disappear, time will not have a 'arrow' etc. There we will talk about 'forces' not mass. And String theory will search for 'hidden' dimensions there, and we all act as if this makes sense, but as soon as one speaks of the measurer's? Why we act so, i guess it's because consciousness is so undefined in physical terms, what is the 'mass' of a thought :)
But i'm just curious to how we can believe that the ones measuring can be taken out of the 'equation' As in a 'objective' reality. You know, that ultimate 'gold standard' that proves it all theoretically without even once questioning what makes the measurements and theories possible. And i do believe time to be a result of space/matter and dimensions, but in the end we are the 'observers' and it's our interactions that makes our theories. And yeah, it sound somewhat like i'm a mystic now :)
To my eyes, no theory can be considered 'whole' that doesn't take into consideration the observer, and that i would call consciousness :). When you go to QM 'matter' will disappear, time will not have a 'arrow' etc. There we will talk about 'forces' not mass. And String theory will search for 'hidden' dimensions there, and we all act as if this makes sense, but as soon as one speaks of the measurer's? Why we act so, i guess it's because consciousness is so undefined in physical terms, what is the 'mass' of a thought :)
In Special Theory of Relativity space and time are intrinsically linked, united into one manifold called “space-time”. The three coordinates X1, X2 and X3 describe space, the fourth coordinate X4 = i x c x t describes time. X1, X2 and X3 are physical coordinates as they correspond to the physical position of a material object into physical space. Instead X4 being an imaginary coordinate is not corresponding to a physical reality, X4 is exclusively a mathematical coordinate that describes duration and numerical order of material changes that run into space. Time is not part of space, time is duration of material changes that run into space. With a clock one measures duration of material changes. This insight introduces new perspectives in the interpretation of EPR experiment: subatomic particles move into space only and not into space-time and are instantaneously connected through space which functions as an immediate information medium between them. Finally, since non-locality is due to bohmian quantum potential, and since to interpret in a correct way also the time-reverse of a quantum process (and thus also of the instantaneous communication between subatomic particles) a symmetry in time in quantum mechanics is needed, a symmetrized reformulation of bohmian mechanics is introduced and analyzed.
@yor_on
I think with respect to time, you will find consciouness to be a poor standard of measure. if consciousness and time were linked in any way, we would have an awful mess on our hands. Beings are notorious in their inability to quantify, sense, or in anyway do anything reliable with respect to time. Most cannot keep a beat. All a consciouness can do with respect to time is to helplessly sense its passing based on memory.
As for the mass of a thought, that like asking what is the mass of a unit of information. What is the mass of the difference in spin of two particles? It's an organizational concept, not a material one.
I've been ruthlessly "forcing" many to observe the following video. It really doesn't answer anything, but it is something I relate to strongly. You can extrapolate it into a concept of consciousness, but it is a stretch.
http://www.edge.org/video/dsl/EF2007_SethLloyd.html
I think with respect to time, you will find consciouness to be a poor standard of measure. if consciousness and time were linked in any way, we would have an awful mess on our hands. Beings are notorious in their inability to quantify, sense, or in anyway do anything reliable with respect to time. Most cannot keep a beat. All a consciouness can do with respect to time is to helplessly sense its passing based on memory.
As for the mass of a thought, that like asking what is the mass of a unit of information. What is the mass of the difference in spin of two particles? It's an organizational concept, not a material one.
I've been ruthlessly "forcing" many to observe the following video. It really doesn't answer anything, but it is something I relate to strongly. You can extrapolate it into a concept of consciousness, but it is a stretch.
http://www.edge.org/video/dsl/EF2007_SethLloyd.html
meBigGuy :) I didn't relate the aspect of 'time' to our consciousness even though it seems to be intrinsically connected to how we perceive the world. You are perfectly right in pointing out our deficiencies regarding intrinsic time measuring. And if you want to cataloging thought as a organizational concept that's ok with me too. StevenA is thinking somewhat to them lines too, i believe. But whatever label you want to use for it, without thoughts none of us would communicate and without the 'observer' nothing would be observed. So i still think i have a point here :)
And for the rest of my post i just want to say that in the end we seem to find 'nothing' at the QM level. There we speak about forces right? We can't define them any clearer than that, and there they don't seem to have any materialistic attributes at all?? And labeling is cool, it's what we need if we ever is gonna make some sense of our world, but the label is not the world and the world is not the 'force' (Sorry, this sounds so mystical so i just couldn't help myself here:)
But i will check out your link :)
And for the rest of my post i just want to say that in the end we seem to find 'nothing' at the QM level. There we speak about forces right? We can't define them any clearer than that, and there they don't seem to have any materialistic attributes at all?? And labeling is cool, it's what we need if we ever is gonna make some sense of our world, but the label is not the world and the world is not the 'force' (Sorry, this sounds so mystical so i just couldn't help myself here:)
But i will check out your link :)
QUOTE (NeoNo.1+Aug 23 2007, 11:50 AM)
Well, I've heard many theories concerning time... One being that time is totally a conscious creation. I agree with that [to some extent]. For instence, QM and RT indicate that there is no reality without the perception of reality. Thus is there a time without the perception, or duration of a time?
Time seems to be an illusion at best, created by those who can precieve time. However, with that aside, i would like to note that accordingto relativity theory, you cannot move through space without passing into the vector of time... Unless of course, you are a zero-time particle, like the photon... But even that last answer is shrouded in controversy, simply because it depends on the observer.
If you are traveling along through space at ''c'', you will experience absolutely no dimensions at all... You would inexorably be traveling through nothing... No space, and thus if relativity theory is correct, absolutely no time at all.
NeoNo.1
well,
Time is only relevant in relation to Space and motion. if you find these functions also to be illusionary , then you can remove time. But to date , all seriously taken theory relies on them.
If you can produce a universe that needs none of the three ,or creates all three + has an energy constant which is contained equally in all spacial dimensions , then you begin to make sense of things.
when you consider how we measure time, there are patterns which don't ring true......Light speed is set as the maximum. It could well be just the maximum measure available to us , because if the theory of light speed / energy were true , we would need infinately LOWER or more sensitive equiptment to get a higher speed reading.What works one way works the other.
as it stands however, the math works against the light speed/ motion/mass theory because the only thing in the universe said NOT to be ruled by light speed is LIGHT. If the time /light speed theory were true , then light must travel inside the maximum speed where the timeline begins to run backwards.
When that is considered then in fact light cannot be moving at all. working back from relativity If light is the measure of time , then everything else is moving from it's point of view, but in a reverse manner. not backwards , but the faster we percieve in our relativity , the slower light percieves motion.
(If a woodchuck could chuck wood )
So light would not see a snail as going slowly at all , but relatively speaking , one of the fastest things in the universe, since , as we do , it must use it's own speed as it's relative motion , everything else is moving while it is standing still.
Time seems to be an illusion at best, created by those who can precieve time. However, with that aside, i would like to note that accordingto relativity theory, you cannot move through space without passing into the vector of time... Unless of course, you are a zero-time particle, like the photon... But even that last answer is shrouded in controversy, simply because it depends on the observer.
If you are traveling along through space at ''c'', you will experience absolutely no dimensions at all... You would inexorably be traveling through nothing... No space, and thus if relativity theory is correct, absolutely no time at all.
NeoNo.1
well,
Time is only relevant in relation to Space and motion. if you find these functions also to be illusionary , then you can remove time. But to date , all seriously taken theory relies on them.
If you can produce a universe that needs none of the three ,or creates all three + has an energy constant which is contained equally in all spacial dimensions , then you begin to make sense of things.
when you consider how we measure time, there are patterns which don't ring true......Light speed is set as the maximum. It could well be just the maximum measure available to us , because if the theory of light speed / energy were true , we would need infinately LOWER or more sensitive equiptment to get a higher speed reading.What works one way works the other.
as it stands however, the math works against the light speed/ motion/mass theory because the only thing in the universe said NOT to be ruled by light speed is LIGHT. If the time /light speed theory were true , then light must travel inside the maximum speed where the timeline begins to run backwards.
When that is considered then in fact light cannot be moving at all. working back from relativity If light is the measure of time , then everything else is moving from it's point of view, but in a reverse manner. not backwards , but the faster we percieve in our relativity , the slower light percieves motion.
(If a woodchuck could chuck wood )
So light would not see a snail as going slowly at all , but relatively speaking , one of the fastest things in the universe, since , as we do , it must use it's own speed as it's relative motion , everything else is moving while it is standing still.
Illusionary perceptions of motion siting at a bus stop looking in front of yourself: Cars appear to zap past much faster than the perception of looking at the same cars in the direction of their motion. The same perceptions occur with ballistic projectiles.
QUOTE (yor_on+Sep 22 2007, 07:18 AM)
And for the rest of my post i just want to say that in the end we seem to find 'nothing' at the QM level. There we speak about forces right? We can't define them any clearer than that, and there they don't seem to have any materialistic attributes at all?? And labeling is cool, it's what we need if we ever is gonna make some sense of our world, but the label is not the world and the world is not the 'force' (Sorry, this sounds so mystical so i just couldn't help myself here:)
But is is mystical. Without the wonder in the 'passionless observer', we'd have nothing to argue. It is necessary to quantify how things work, but we don't always get answers to 'why?'.
May the farce be with us.
But is is mystical. Without the wonder in the 'passionless observer', we'd have nothing to argue. It is necessary to quantify how things work, but we don't always get answers to 'why?'.
May the farce be with us.
QUOTE (iseason+Sep 23 2007, 06:25 AM)
well,
Time is only relevant in relation to Space and motion. if you find these functions also to be illusionary , then you can remove time. But to date , all seriously taken theory relies on them.
If you can produce a universe that needs none of the three ,or creates all three + has an energy constant which is contained equally in all spacial dimensions , then you begin to make sense of things.
when you consider how we measure time, there are patterns which don't ring true......Light speed is set as the maximum. It could well be just the maximum measure available to us , because if the theory of light speed / energy were true , we would need infinitely LOWER or more sensitive equipment to get a higher speed reading.What works one way works the other.
as it stands however, the math works against the light speed/ motion/mass theory because the only thing in the universe said NOT to be ruled by light speed is LIGHT. If the time /light speed theory were true , then light must travel inside the maximum speed where the time line begins to run backwards.
When that is considered then in fact light cannot be moving at all. working back from relativity If light is the measure of time , then everything else is moving from it's point of view, but in a reverse manner. not backwards , but the faster we perceive in our relativity , the slower light perceives motion.
(If a woodchuck could chuck wood )
So light would not see a snail as going slowly at all , but relatively speaking , one of the fastest things in the universe, since , as we do , it must use it's own speed as it's relative motion , everything else is moving while it is standing still.
actually , I haven't taken this nearly far enough.
A snail , would be one or two parts in gazillion in scale of reference for light. because individually , light is the smallest 'interactive' determiner, time and scale as we know it do not enter into it.
See . From our perspective a journey takes forever because we move through medium smaller than us (by scale). however, Light cannot rest at any stage for reference as we can by "sitting at a bus stop , watching cars go by".
Light lives in a world of LIGHT. And with no reference advantage that we have in perception, the journey is over without ever having begun. light never encounters any sort of barrier (despite our view to the contrary).
Because it is the smallest interactive particle , it CANNOT interact ON ANY LEVEL with ANYTHING....Unless >>>>>> it is not....
Cheers
Iseason
Time is only relevant in relation to Space and motion. if you find these functions also to be illusionary , then you can remove time. But to date , all seriously taken theory relies on them.
If you can produce a universe that needs none of the three ,or creates all three + has an energy constant which is contained equally in all spacial dimensions , then you begin to make sense of things.
when you consider how we measure time, there are patterns which don't ring true......Light speed is set as the maximum. It could well be just the maximum measure available to us , because if the theory of light speed / energy were true , we would need infinitely LOWER or more sensitive equipment to get a higher speed reading.What works one way works the other.
as it stands however, the math works against the light speed/ motion/mass theory because the only thing in the universe said NOT to be ruled by light speed is LIGHT. If the time /light speed theory were true , then light must travel inside the maximum speed where the time line begins to run backwards.
When that is considered then in fact light cannot be moving at all. working back from relativity If light is the measure of time , then everything else is moving from it's point of view, but in a reverse manner. not backwards , but the faster we perceive in our relativity , the slower light perceives motion.
(If a woodchuck could chuck wood )
So light would not see a snail as going slowly at all , but relatively speaking , one of the fastest things in the universe, since , as we do , it must use it's own speed as it's relative motion , everything else is moving while it is standing still.
actually , I haven't taken this nearly far enough.
A snail , would be one or two parts in gazillion in scale of reference for light. because individually , light is the smallest 'interactive' determiner, time and scale as we know it do not enter into it.
See . From our perspective a journey takes forever because we move through medium smaller than us (by scale). however, Light cannot rest at any stage for reference as we can by "sitting at a bus stop , watching cars go by".
Light lives in a world of LIGHT. And with no reference advantage that we have in perception, the journey is over without ever having begun. light never encounters any sort of barrier (despite our view to the contrary).
Because it is the smallest interactive particle , it CANNOT interact ON ANY LEVEL with ANYTHING....Unless >>>>>> it is not....
Cheers
Iseason
@yor_on
I could play circular definition games with your statement, but I'll respond to what I think you are implying.
The tendency to take demonstrated effects at the quantum level (such as entanglement and wave function collapse), and then extend those observations to the macro level and then to multi-verse and observer-created universe scenarios is a tremendous stretch. I can't prove this mathematically, but I'm of the opinion that the size of the system affects its collapse into "reality". Something like self observation (or even "timeouts"). So, as a result, the universe continues its march through time without a need for "conscious" observation. This provides the informational playground of Seth Lloyd (did you watch the video) an opportunity to create consciouness and all the confusion that results (witness these forums).
QUOTE
But whatever label you want to use for it, without thoughts none of us would communicate and without the 'observer' nothing would be observed. So i still think i have a point here
I could play circular definition games with your statement, but I'll respond to what I think you are implying.
The tendency to take demonstrated effects at the quantum level (such as entanglement and wave function collapse), and then extend those observations to the macro level and then to multi-verse and observer-created universe scenarios is a tremendous stretch. I can't prove this mathematically, but I'm of the opinion that the size of the system affects its collapse into "reality". Something like self observation (or even "timeouts"). So, as a result, the universe continues its march through time without a need for "conscious" observation. This provides the informational playground of Seth Lloyd (did you watch the video) an opportunity to create consciouness and all the confusion that results (witness these forums).
time is duration of material chage that run into space
time does not run into space on its own.....
time does not run into space on its own.....
An interesting theory has recently been proposed within my research that suggests that the very nature of an expanding universe is what hosts 4 dimensional space. Last month I made several posts regarding the nature of TIME and how we can include TIME as a very real dimension.
The theory is some what difficult to prove, yet NOT impossible and does provide a very rich mechanical explanation to many of nature’s phenomena.
First we must understand what the math tells us about “expansion!” It is a common misconception that as the universe grows it is creating new space IE “new” 4 dimensional space, were as the rest of the universe remains static and unchanged.
However; the true effect of expansion is as it is said “expanding” IE 4 dimensional space is in effect stretching, and at a phenomenal rate. In fact it is possible to reason, with the use of GR & SR that the rate of expansion is the speed of light.
This provides an interesting and fitting solution to the TIME dilation phenomena. When we buzz around (IE provide motion) in an environment of expanding 4 dimensional space, we are in fact resisting expansion and therefore within that domain we are traveling “relatively” slower in 4 dimensions than the rest of the expanding domain.
The theory goes that the universe, IE 4 dimensional space is in a state of expansion. This even includes matter and energy. You me and everything around us is expanding at the + speed of light (since motion, time and velocity are all relative I will use a plus or minus symbol to denote relative velocity IE slowing down at the speed of light or speeding up at the speed of light.)
It is fascinating to imagine that we ourselves our expanding at a phenomenal rate, which brings me to the nature of matter and gravity.
As 4 dimensional space continues to stretch and expand, the domain occupied by matter is under-mind. Matter has a quality to resist expansion of 4 dimensional space, therefore creating its very own sub-domain of compressed 4 dimensional space. Imagine HEIGHT, WIDTH, LENTH and TIME, that is in a state of expansion, being dragged back by matter. The effect is of courses known as GRAVITY…
Quantum mechanics is a headache for many theorists. The strange behavior of quantum particles has invited many attempts of explanation, yet all have fallen short as a true description of what is really happening.
Expansion theory does offer a very controversial idea which is very hard to swallow; however quantum weirdness is hard to swallow anyway, so why not apply a weird solution.
For all those familiar with the 2 slit trick will know that by the simply ACT of observation we can change the out come of the experiment by braking down the wave function. For those you don’t know about the 2 slit trick, check it out on youtube.com, there is a great animation that explains it.
With expansion theory we can suggest that sub-atomic particles inhabits a 4 dimensional domain that is out of sync with ours IE since a sub-atomic particle has less resistance to expansion than us, the observer! Their domain of expansion is running faster than ours.
Imagine the sub-atomic 4D domain, HEIGHT, WIDTH, LENGTH and TIME is expanding faster than the 4D domain that we inhabit.
It is incredible to imagine and very well fitting that our observation of waves are from a perspective operating on a delayed TIME line. Waves show us all possible paths and out comes the sub-atomic particles can mathematically take.
It truly is tremendous to think that when we choose to observe the path of a single quantum particle, we choose to observe the path of 1 out of an untold amount of possible out comes, hence we see the wave function collapse when we observe 1 path opposed to the billions of possible paths when we CHOOSE not to observe.
M-theory suggest that all possibilities are played out which is supported by expansion theory. When we witness a wave, we are in fact witnessing sub-atomic particles passing us through a faster TIME LINE.
I can imagine many eyebrows are being raised as you read this. Due to the complicated nature of the theory I have explained with limited detail. It is good to hear your feed back so I can slowly elaborate…
Happy pondering
The theory is some what difficult to prove, yet NOT impossible and does provide a very rich mechanical explanation to many of nature’s phenomena.
First we must understand what the math tells us about “expansion!” It is a common misconception that as the universe grows it is creating new space IE “new” 4 dimensional space, were as the rest of the universe remains static and unchanged.
However; the true effect of expansion is as it is said “expanding” IE 4 dimensional space is in effect stretching, and at a phenomenal rate. In fact it is possible to reason, with the use of GR & SR that the rate of expansion is the speed of light.
This provides an interesting and fitting solution to the TIME dilation phenomena. When we buzz around (IE provide motion) in an environment of expanding 4 dimensional space, we are in fact resisting expansion and therefore within that domain we are traveling “relatively” slower in 4 dimensions than the rest of the expanding domain.
The theory goes that the universe, IE 4 dimensional space is in a state of expansion. This even includes matter and energy. You me and everything around us is expanding at the + speed of light (since motion, time and velocity are all relative I will use a plus or minus symbol to denote relative velocity IE slowing down at the speed of light or speeding up at the speed of light.)
It is fascinating to imagine that we ourselves our expanding at a phenomenal rate, which brings me to the nature of matter and gravity.
As 4 dimensional space continues to stretch and expand, the domain occupied by matter is under-mind. Matter has a quality to resist expansion of 4 dimensional space, therefore creating its very own sub-domain of compressed 4 dimensional space. Imagine HEIGHT, WIDTH, LENTH and TIME, that is in a state of expansion, being dragged back by matter. The effect is of courses known as GRAVITY…
Quantum mechanics is a headache for many theorists. The strange behavior of quantum particles has invited many attempts of explanation, yet all have fallen short as a true description of what is really happening.
Expansion theory does offer a very controversial idea which is very hard to swallow; however quantum weirdness is hard to swallow anyway, so why not apply a weird solution.
For all those familiar with the 2 slit trick will know that by the simply ACT of observation we can change the out come of the experiment by braking down the wave function. For those you don’t know about the 2 slit trick, check it out on youtube.com, there is a great animation that explains it.
With expansion theory we can suggest that sub-atomic particles inhabits a 4 dimensional domain that is out of sync with ours IE since a sub-atomic particle has less resistance to expansion than us, the observer! Their domain of expansion is running faster than ours.
Imagine the sub-atomic 4D domain, HEIGHT, WIDTH, LENGTH and TIME is expanding faster than the 4D domain that we inhabit.
It is incredible to imagine and very well fitting that our observation of waves are from a perspective operating on a delayed TIME line. Waves show us all possible paths and out comes the sub-atomic particles can mathematically take.
It truly is tremendous to think that when we choose to observe the path of a single quantum particle, we choose to observe the path of 1 out of an untold amount of possible out comes, hence we see the wave function collapse when we observe 1 path opposed to the billions of possible paths when we CHOOSE not to observe.
M-theory suggest that all possibilities are played out which is supported by expansion theory. When we witness a wave, we are in fact witnessing sub-atomic particles passing us through a faster TIME LINE.
I can imagine many eyebrows are being raised as you read this. Due to the complicated nature of the theory I have explained with limited detail. It is good to hear your feed back so I can slowly elaborate…
Happy pondering
QUOTE (NEVERDRY+Sep 13 2007, 01:19 PM)
And what is SPACE?
What is water surface? A place for energy spreading, by the same way, like the vacuum. And what the water surface is? The gradient of inertia density.
By Aether Wave theory every observable reality is just an inertial gradient. The space-time is the largest local one.
What is water surface? A place for energy spreading, by the same way, like the vacuum. And what the water surface is? The gradient of inertia density.
By Aether Wave theory every observable reality is just an inertial gradient. The space-time is the largest local one.
@NEVERDRY
We will never agree, as you may see from my last post. But I thought the "matter resisting expansion = gravity" was a cute one. You'll have to tell me how there is more space between receeding things without creating new space.
Anyway, I'm more of a mind that we are part of the computational cosmos. Units of organization manipulated at the quantum level. It is simple theory of existence at a level different that you describe (no grand multi-verses).
Anyway, check out this link, and tell me if it moved any neurons. Even if you don't observe it, it will still be there
http://www.edge.org/video/dsl/EF2007_SethLloyd.html
We will never agree, as you may see from my last post. But I thought the "matter resisting expansion = gravity" was a cute one. You'll have to tell me how there is more space between receeding things without creating new space.
Anyway, I'm more of a mind that we are part of the computational cosmos. Units of organization manipulated at the quantum level. It is simple theory of existence at a level different that you describe (no grand multi-verses).
Anyway, check out this link, and tell me if it moved any neurons. Even if you don't observe it, it will still be there
http://www.edge.org/video/dsl/EF2007_SethLloyd.html
Building a universe
Before anyone starts getting excited I would like to make clear that I am NOT attempting to give an answer to the creation of the universe... I shall humbly leave that to the theologians.
A new theory has been developed that can possibly lay a path way for a Grand Unifying Theory, which offers a fitting description of the governing nature of our universe. The hard part is, trying to describe the theory in the easiest way possible.
Although un-scientific it does require some imagination so we can exercise our thought models. I shall begin with asking you to put yourself into a GODS EYE position and imagine the prospects of building a universe. (This is a thought experiment NOT a claim that GOD exists)
The first part in building a universe is SPACE. Seems obvious and simply right! However; how do we make space?
SPACE is constructed out of dimensions, 3 of which we are well acquainted with IE HEIGHT, WIDTH & LENGTH. However; it is important that we do not limit our perspective of the universe with just 3 dimensions.
If the universe was constructed out of just 3 dimensions, matter would manifest itself into cubes, not spheres… A forth dimension is needed to allow matter to manifest into spheres.
The curvature of TIME can therefore be recognised as a forth dimension; however, this is very controversial. How can we recognise TIME as a dimension? Einstein figured out the SPACE/TIME was curved, giving us a forth dimension IE the curvature of SPACE is what allows matter to accumulate into spheres, but where does TIME become a dimension?
TIME is in fact ALL 4 DIMENSION (or possibly more) and can be fundamentally linked as the same entity within EXPANSION THEORY…
One of the big problems in accepting TIME as being the same as 4 dimensional space, is that the properties are so different IE we can step backwards and forwards in 4 dimensional space, but we can not step backwards in TIME. However we can question our movement in 4 dimensions when we take into account our current expansion velocity.
EXPANSION THEORY suggests that the universe IE 4 dimensional space or TIME is expanding at a phenomenal rate. Even us, the planets, the stars… everything is expanding with the universe, however the rate of expansion is NOT equal.
MASS has a quality that resists expansion… remember what is expanding – the universe – TIME – 4 dimensional space. The 4 dimensional TIME domain, inhabited by MASS resists and slows down the rate of expansion creating a depression in the expansion velocity, like a well of compressed SPACE/TIME. Naturally this depression in the expansion velocity, better known as gravity, accumulates more MASS, thus increasing the resistance of expansion.
EXPANSION TEORY gives a clear and mechanical explanation to GRAVITY. We can also see why gravitational fields have an effect on TIME, since time is 4 dimensional space that is compressed or “slowed down” by the resistance to expansion.
We can now reasonably gather that expansion of the universe is what generates dimensions or TIME… so were does energy fit into this?
“C” the speed of light… how do we measure “c” by observing light I suppose; but we observe light from the domain of the gravity effect or resisting expansion; or from a slowed down TIME scale.
Could it be reasonable to suggest that “c” has TWO directions IE “speeding up or slowing down, at the speed of light.” We can say that LIGHT is travelling close the expansion velocity of the universe; however we see light from a “slower in TIME” perspective. Does this explain its wave like behaviour?
We can also postulate that when we add energy to matter IE increase the velocity MATTER (that is already in a slowed down state) we in effect increase the resisting expansion property of MATER; therefore we actually begin to slow down closer to the speed of light.
This, therefore; stipulates that “c” can be denoted in two ways… NEGATIVE “c” or POSITIVE “c” (+c or –c) each different light speed has different effects.
(+c) Small particles of “Quanta” or photons travel faster through SPACE/TIME from our perspective, since their MASS is so small, their resistance to expansion is minuscule compared to our domain of slowed down SPACE/TIME… Are we seeing all possible mathematical paths the photon can make from a behind in TIME perspective, hence the wave like behaviour?
(-c) When we accelerate MATTER through SPACE/TIME we are in fact slowing down, relative to the expansion velocity… We are thus presented with the TIME dilation phenomena, in fact if we were to achieve absolute –c we would in fact cancel out the expansion velocity; thus collapse SPACE/TIME within that domain. (BLACK HOLES) this is in line with Einstein. “It is impossible to accelerate past -c”
However it is undetermined if it is possible or not to accelerate beyond +c
The trouble is that every time we attempt to accelerate MATTER we only manage to slow down the expansion velocity of SPACE/TIME (-c) in effect we end up wait longer for our destination to come to us… Ironic isn’t it?
Another clue is radioactive decay… could it be a result of EXPASION THEORY. IE is the expanding universe slowly ripping MATTER apart, as it desperately tries to resist EXPANSION?
Well its time to hear your views before I elaborate further…
ALL FEED BACK IS WELCOME
Happy pondering
Before anyone starts getting excited I would like to make clear that I am NOT attempting to give an answer to the creation of the universe... I shall humbly leave that to the theologians.
A new theory has been developed that can possibly lay a path way for a Grand Unifying Theory, which offers a fitting description of the governing nature of our universe. The hard part is, trying to describe the theory in the easiest way possible.
Although un-scientific it does require some imagination so we can exercise our thought models. I shall begin with asking you to put yourself into a GODS EYE position and imagine the prospects of building a universe. (This is a thought experiment NOT a claim that GOD exists)
The first part in building a universe is SPACE. Seems obvious and simply right! However; how do we make space?
SPACE is constructed out of dimensions, 3 of which we are well acquainted with IE HEIGHT, WIDTH & LENGTH. However; it is important that we do not limit our perspective of the universe with just 3 dimensions.
If the universe was constructed out of just 3 dimensions, matter would manifest itself into cubes, not spheres… A forth dimension is needed to allow matter to manifest into spheres.
The curvature of TIME can therefore be recognised as a forth dimension; however, this is very controversial. How can we recognise TIME as a dimension? Einstein figured out the SPACE/TIME was curved, giving us a forth dimension IE the curvature of SPACE is what allows matter to accumulate into spheres, but where does TIME become a dimension?
TIME is in fact ALL 4 DIMENSION (or possibly more) and can be fundamentally linked as the same entity within EXPANSION THEORY…
One of the big problems in accepting TIME as being the same as 4 dimensional space, is that the properties are so different IE we can step backwards and forwards in 4 dimensional space, but we can not step backwards in TIME. However we can question our movement in 4 dimensions when we take into account our current expansion velocity.
EXPANSION THEORY suggests that the universe IE 4 dimensional space or TIME is expanding at a phenomenal rate. Even us, the planets, the stars… everything is expanding with the universe, however the rate of expansion is NOT equal.
MASS has a quality that resists expansion… remember what is expanding – the universe – TIME – 4 dimensional space. The 4 dimensional TIME domain, inhabited by MASS resists and slows down the rate of expansion creating a depression in the expansion velocity, like a well of compressed SPACE/TIME. Naturally this depression in the expansion velocity, better known as gravity, accumulates more MASS, thus increasing the resistance of expansion.
EXPANSION TEORY gives a clear and mechanical explanation to GRAVITY. We can also see why gravitational fields have an effect on TIME, since time is 4 dimensional space that is compressed or “slowed down” by the resistance to expansion.
We can now reasonably gather that expansion of the universe is what generates dimensions or TIME… so were does energy fit into this?
“C” the speed of light… how do we measure “c” by observing light I suppose; but we observe light from the domain of the gravity effect or resisting expansion; or from a slowed down TIME scale.
Could it be reasonable to suggest that “c” has TWO directions IE “speeding up or slowing down, at the speed of light.” We can say that LIGHT is travelling close the expansion velocity of the universe; however we see light from a “slower in TIME” perspective. Does this explain its wave like behaviour?
We can also postulate that when we add energy to matter IE increase the velocity MATTER (that is already in a slowed down state) we in effect increase the resisting expansion property of MATER; therefore we actually begin to slow down closer to the speed of light.
This, therefore; stipulates that “c” can be denoted in two ways… NEGATIVE “c” or POSITIVE “c” (+c or –c) each different light speed has different effects.
(+c) Small particles of “Quanta” or photons travel faster through SPACE/TIME from our perspective, since their MASS is so small, their resistance to expansion is minuscule compared to our domain of slowed down SPACE/TIME… Are we seeing all possible mathematical paths the photon can make from a behind in TIME perspective, hence the wave like behaviour?
(-c) When we accelerate MATTER through SPACE/TIME we are in fact slowing down, relative to the expansion velocity… We are thus presented with the TIME dilation phenomena, in fact if we were to achieve absolute –c we would in fact cancel out the expansion velocity; thus collapse SPACE/TIME within that domain. (BLACK HOLES) this is in line with Einstein. “It is impossible to accelerate past -c”
However it is undetermined if it is possible or not to accelerate beyond +c
The trouble is that every time we attempt to accelerate MATTER we only manage to slow down the expansion velocity of SPACE/TIME (-c) in effect we end up wait longer for our destination to come to us… Ironic isn’t it?
Another clue is radioactive decay… could it be a result of EXPASION THEORY. IE is the expanding universe slowly ripping MATTER apart, as it desperately tries to resist EXPANSION?
Well its time to hear your views before I elaborate further…
ALL FEED BACK IS WELCOME
Happy pondering
I guess you choose not to consider other points of view, nor answer questions in less than a 1000 words. Seems par for the course in these forums.
NEVERMIND.
NEVERMIND.
have recently posted my views on EXPANSION THEORY and I thank everyone for their feed back and debate.
I would now like to elaborate more on GRAVITY…
Out of the four fundamental forces of nature “gravity” is the only one that does not fit in with the others.
Could gravity not really be a force? Expansion theory does give a very fitting view on what gravity really is.
Currently the latest theory to explain the week nature of gravity is along the lines of a force that slips and spreads it self out through 11 dimensions.
Of course this is just speculation and such a wild notion does warrant another perspective.
Thanks to Edwin Hubble we are now aware that our universe is expanding. The common mistake we have when we try to grasp this concept is that we imagine new space is being created, on the contrary, we must imagine that there is NO new creation of space, but a stretching of space from an infinitely dense blue-print singularity.
This is one of the most interesting notions presented by expansion theory. All the settings and laws of nature were written within this infinitely dense singularity. Like the groves in a vinyl record.
The expansion effect amplified all of the small discrepancies within the infinitely dense singularity giving use the laws of nature and the structure of the universe.
We see this at a sub-atomic level; when we look very closely at the quantum world we see the how sub-atomic particles bounce around the chaotic fabric of sub-atomic space.
Like when we see a smooth sheet of wood it appears flat and normal; however when we look at the same sheet of wood under a microscope, we see a chaotic landscape of knots, grooves and twists.
This gives us a new perspective on how sub-atomic particles behave. Instead of particles having their own independent nature, it is better to suggest that it is how particles interact with the fabric of SPACE.
When sub-atomic particles play their course and follow the laws set by the blue-print singularity, nature has it to form MATTER.
We can now see that it is the very fabric of SPACE/TIME that governs the behavior of energy and in turn energy forms mass to matter and thus SPACE/TIME re-interacts with the higher for of energy MATTER thus we have GRAVITY.
Mass has the properties to resist the stretching of expanding SPACE/TIME, thus we see gravity, areas within the universe resisting the expansion velocity. Gravity wells are compressions of SPACE/TIME, as the universe is stretching out, matter is holding back, resisting the big stretch, thus slowing down and compressing SPACE/TIME.
The Theory is very fitting to our most current observations and excludes GRAVITY as being a fundamental force, but rather places it as how SPACE/TIME interacts with higher forms of energy IE MATTER.
All feed back is welcome
I would now like to elaborate more on GRAVITY…
Out of the four fundamental forces of nature “gravity” is the only one that does not fit in with the others.
Could gravity not really be a force? Expansion theory does give a very fitting view on what gravity really is.
Currently the latest theory to explain the week nature of gravity is along the lines of a force that slips and spreads it self out through 11 dimensions.
Of course this is just speculation and such a wild notion does warrant another perspective.
Thanks to Edwin Hubble we are now aware that our universe is expanding. The common mistake we have when we try to grasp this concept is that we imagine new space is being created, on the contrary, we must imagine that there is NO new creation of space, but a stretching of space from an infinitely dense blue-print singularity.
This is one of the most interesting notions presented by expansion theory. All the settings and laws of nature were written within this infinitely dense singularity. Like the groves in a vinyl record.
The expansion effect amplified all of the small discrepancies within the infinitely dense singularity giving use the laws of nature and the structure of the universe.
We see this at a sub-atomic level; when we look very closely at the quantum world we see the how sub-atomic particles bounce around the chaotic fabric of sub-atomic space.
Like when we see a smooth sheet of wood it appears flat and normal; however when we look at the same sheet of wood under a microscope, we see a chaotic landscape of knots, grooves and twists.
This gives us a new perspective on how sub-atomic particles behave. Instead of particles having their own independent nature, it is better to suggest that it is how particles interact with the fabric of SPACE.
When sub-atomic particles play their course and follow the laws set by the blue-print singularity, nature has it to form MATTER.
We can now see that it is the very fabric of SPACE/TIME that governs the behavior of energy and in turn energy forms mass to matter and thus SPACE/TIME re-interacts with the higher for of energy MATTER thus we have GRAVITY.
Mass has the properties to resist the stretching of expanding SPACE/TIME, thus we see gravity, areas within the universe resisting the expansion velocity. Gravity wells are compressions of SPACE/TIME, as the universe is stretching out, matter is holding back, resisting the big stretch, thus slowing down and compressing SPACE/TIME.
The Theory is very fitting to our most current observations and excludes GRAVITY as being a fundamental force, but rather places it as how SPACE/TIME interacts with higher forms of energy IE MATTER.
All feed back is welcome
no time is not dimension into which material change run
because of this X4 in SR is an imaginary coordinate...
Einstein was aware of that
TIME IS DURATION of material change that run into spce
because of this X4 in SR is an imaginary coordinate...
Einstein was aware of that
TIME IS DURATION of material change that run into spce
Sod-off Amrit you absolute hyper-idiot! 
QUOTE (Rabbit+Sep 30 2007, 12:20 PM)
Sod-off Amrit you absolute hyper-idiot!
yes yes, and you do not understand much about time......my dear....
yes yes, and you do not understand much about time......my dear....
" I'm of the opinion that the size of the system affects its collapse into "reality". Something like self observation (or even "timeouts"). So, as a result, the universe continues its march through time without a need for "conscious" observation. "
MBG I can relate to that one, if you like you could see it as the opposite to 'self organization' and 'self awareness' which are two concept which i think may lie behind 'consciousness' in what ever form it may take. I think nature when it reaches a certain complexity at any size will become conscious. The reason why i think so is us :) also we need to have a wide definition of what we may state as consciousness the same as what we call color perception may differ between species. But that is only what i believe though (yeah, i can see the jokes a coming here:)
" As 4 dimensional space continues to stretch and expand, the domain occupied by matter is under-mind. Matter has a quality to resist expansion of 4 dimensional space, therefore creating its very own sub-domain of compressed 4 dimensional space. Imagine HEIGHT, WIDTH, LENTH and TIME, that is in a state of expansion, being dragged back by matter. The effect is of courses known as GRAVITY… "
Original thought my man :)
I've come to believe that time is not a dimension of space but a dimension of conciousness in which our awareness exists on a particular frequency and plane of space.
time is dimension invented by the man
if you do not measure it time does not exist
but when you measure it time becomes physical reality
strange enough but real
definitely time is not part of consciousness
if you do not measure it time does not exist
but when you measure it time becomes physical reality
strange enough but real
definitely time is not part of consciousness
Neverdry
i worked a long while on expansive theory. (in my own humble way) And abandoned it because it could not break down to one indivisible particle or energy.I felt sure ( and am still not dismissive of a behavior) that allowed a photon to expand over time to the same mass as a star.
It came down to the original state or particle STILL needed to occupy every position in space and FROM THERE create variation. Expansion theory fails to answer the outer limits question.
That was when I looked at the other extreme and saw that the bigger picture had to be the driving force behind the behavior. Fill the void with SOMETHING and use THAT to create NOTHING and it works. I like expansive theory for it's clean lines of creation. In order to preserve thermodynamics however , it was necessary that the expanded energy was there first.
Cheers
Iseason
i worked a long while on expansive theory. (in my own humble way) And abandoned it because it could not break down to one indivisible particle or energy.I felt sure ( and am still not dismissive of a behavior) that allowed a photon to expand over time to the same mass as a star.
It came down to the original state or particle STILL needed to occupy every position in space and FROM THERE create variation. Expansion theory fails to answer the outer limits question.
That was when I looked at the other extreme and saw that the bigger picture had to be the driving force behind the behavior. Fill the void with SOMETHING and use THAT to create NOTHING and it works. I like expansive theory for it's clean lines of creation. In order to preserve thermodynamics however , it was necessary that the expanded energy was there first.
Cheers
Iseason
NEVERDRY
Basically if i understand correctly you are saying that you have an object which is its own portion of space-time residing on larger portion of space-time plane. Not disconnected. Thus every object is in its own subjective space-time zone and at the same time rests on surface of where it popped from and cannot separate itself from it.-----I was reaching this conclusion believe it or not just by thinking that time can have variable speed effect. Perception of time as relative effect.
By some twisted logic -because I don’t know string theory except from layman perspective- but isnt this what strings theory is talking about? Something like we are glued to a brane. Flatlanders and company? And to make this consistently theoretically work you need at least 11-dimensional reality?
But not to mix string theory with this cranky idea. I did expand this idea slightly. Global space-time surface is kind of giving births to enormous variety of space-time bubbles which are not disconnected from global surface at all. They are inflations. Local disturbances kind of. Where is the expansion of the idea? Basically this means that if you pop up wherever and whenever you should see enormous variety of ages between stars, galaxies and so forth. Meaning that you don’t need a unique event at all for example. Meaning that Big bang is not required as for the beginning of such reality. But it may be required to explain the begining of local neighborhood which may include only our galaxy. But can be generalized to others since everything comes by the same procces. Things pop up and pop out all the time. Because this is such a large quantity there is always something to see. You can find yourself being near a galaxy that is twice as old or young as your local space-time and so on. Enormous variety of ages should be observable.
Basically if i understand correctly you are saying that you have an object which is its own portion of space-time residing on larger portion of space-time plane. Not disconnected. Thus every object is in its own subjective space-time zone and at the same time rests on surface of where it popped from and cannot separate itself from it.-----I was reaching this conclusion believe it or not just by thinking that time can have variable speed effect. Perception of time as relative effect.
By some twisted logic -because I don’t know string theory except from layman perspective- but isnt this what strings theory is talking about? Something like we are glued to a brane. Flatlanders and company? And to make this consistently theoretically work you need at least 11-dimensional reality?
But not to mix string theory with this cranky idea. I did expand this idea slightly. Global space-time surface is kind of giving births to enormous variety of space-time bubbles which are not disconnected from global surface at all. They are inflations. Local disturbances kind of. Where is the expansion of the idea? Basically this means that if you pop up wherever and whenever you should see enormous variety of ages between stars, galaxies and so forth. Meaning that you don’t need a unique event at all for example. Meaning that Big bang is not required as for the beginning of such reality. But it may be required to explain the begining of local neighborhood which may include only our galaxy. But can be generalized to others since everything comes by the same procces. Things pop up and pop out all the time. Because this is such a large quantity there is always something to see. You can find yourself being near a galaxy that is twice as old or young as your local space-time and so on. Enormous variety of ages should be observable.
QUOTE (Majkl+Oct 28 2007, 01:33 PM)
NEVERDRY
Basically if i understand correctly you are saying that you have an object which is its own portion of space-time residing on larger portion of space-time plane. Not disconnected. Thus every object is in its own subjective space-time zone and at the same time rests on surface of where it popped from and cannot separate itself from it.-----I was reaching this conclusion believe it or not just by thinking that time can have variable speed effect. Perception of time as relative effect.
By some twisted logic -because I don’t know string theory except from layman perspective- but isnt this what strings theory is talking about? Something like we are glued to a brane. Flatlanders and company? And to make this consistently theoretically work you need at least 11-dimensional reality?
But not to mix string theory with this cranky idea. I did expand this idea slightly. Global space-time surface is kind of giving births to enormous variety of space-time bubbles which are not disconnected from global surface at all. They are inflations. Local disturbances kind of. Where is the expansion of the idea? Basically this means that if you pop up wherever and whenever you should see enormous variety of ages between stars, galaxies and so forth. Meaning that you don’t need a unique event at all for example. Meaning that Big bang is not required as for the beginning of such reality. But it may be required to explain the begining of local neighborhood which may include only our galaxy. But can be generalized to others since everything comes by the same procces. Things pop up and pop out all the time. Because this is such a large quantity there is always something to see. You can find yourself being near a galaxy that is twice as old or young as your local space-time and so on. Enormous variety of ages should be observable.
there is no local space-time.....
and space-time at all.....
read.....
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v31/i8/p1879_1
Basically if i understand correctly you are saying that you have an object which is its own portion of space-time residing on larger portion of space-time plane. Not disconnected. Thus every object is in its own subjective space-time zone and at the same time rests on surface of where it popped from and cannot separate itself from it.-----I was reaching this conclusion believe it or not just by thinking that time can have variable speed effect. Perception of time as relative effect.
By some twisted logic -because I don’t know string theory except from layman perspective- but isnt this what strings theory is talking about? Something like we are glued to a brane. Flatlanders and company? And to make this consistently theoretically work you need at least 11-dimensional reality?
But not to mix string theory with this cranky idea. I did expand this idea slightly. Global space-time surface is kind of giving births to enormous variety of space-time bubbles which are not disconnected from global surface at all. They are inflations. Local disturbances kind of. Where is the expansion of the idea? Basically this means that if you pop up wherever and whenever you should see enormous variety of ages between stars, galaxies and so forth. Meaning that you don’t need a unique event at all for example. Meaning that Big bang is not required as for the beginning of such reality. But it may be required to explain the begining of local neighborhood which may include only our galaxy. But can be generalized to others since everything comes by the same procces. Things pop up and pop out all the time. Because this is such a large quantity there is always something to see. You can find yourself being near a galaxy that is twice as old or young as your local space-time and so on. Enormous variety of ages should be observable.
there is no local space-time.....
and space-time at all.....
read.....
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v31/i8/p1879_1
QUOTE
amrit Posted: Oct 9 2007, 11:29 PM time is dimension invented by the man
the dimension is there, time is the name man gave it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| amrit Posted: Oct 9 2007, 11:29 PM time is dimension invented by the man |
the dimension is there, time is the name man gave it.
if you do not measure it time does not exist
do events occur without observation... hmmm... i think so. the universe was expanding befor man observed the expansion...
QUOTE (kjw+Nov 1 2007, 10:01 AM)
the dimension is there, time is the name man gave it.
do events occur without observation... hmmm... i think so. the universe was expanding befor man observed the expansion...
you mix things
sure universe run without being observed
but time not, time to exist has to be measured......GOT IT
do events occur without observation... hmmm... i think so. the universe was expanding befor man observed the expansion...
you mix things
sure universe run without being observed
but time not, time to exist has to be measured......GOT IT
QUOTE
amrit Posted: Yesterday at 10:44 PM sure universe run without being observed
what is running in this un-observed universe ... events
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| amrit Posted: Yesterday at 10:44 PM sure universe run without being observed |
what is running in this un-observed universe ... events
time to exist has to be measured......
and when we measure the order of these events we call it time. do not confuse measuring something that already exists and calling it something else (mainly because of having the wrong idea of what it is you are measuring), to mean that it does not exist until you measure it.
QUOTE
you mix things
vodka and tonic quite well thankyou
"flow of time" is an illusion
there is no time running into universe .......no prove for that.....
there is no time beyond stream of events......
time is duration of events....
you right events ha duration even when nobody measure it...
thanks....
there is no time running into universe .......no prove for that.....
there is no time beyond stream of events......
time is duration of events....
you right events ha duration even when nobody measure it...
thanks....
Expansion Theory
It is often over looked yet, vitally significant that in order for something to exist, there is the need for something, for something to exist in.
Our answers can only ever be as good as our questions.
I have written many posts on Expansion theory & The Speed of Time. I have enjoyed everyone’s feed back, debate and criticism, for that is what science is about.
Expansion theory attempts to give ONE answer to many of natures phenomena, it provides a mechanical and sensible model for us to view the universe.
One of the greatest proposals presented by Expansion theory is that Gravity is NOT a force IE NOT a force that should be associated with the other 3 – Weak Nuclear – Strong Nuclear and Electro Magnetic.
No explanation to why gravity is so week has yet been determined; however string theorists believe that gravity is a force that slips and spread itself through 11 different dimensions. It’s a fair stab in the dark answer but is the real question of gravity complete? Why does gravity effect time? When gravity is implemented in its most extreme (black holes) how gravity gives rise to the singularity –event horizon within a black hole.
Even though gravity appears to be a very real fundamental force of nature, its properties are far to unique to be included with the others – I think many mathematician string/M-theorists would love to see the back of gravity because it simply is not compatible with unification; however we can not discard gravity as a F-force unless we find another explanation to its nature.
The Big Bang – the universe began to expand…
This is another example where the questions stops short, what was expanding? SPACE & TIME.
I have enjoyed the debates given on this forum about TIME. Some like to regard TIME as just abstract concept others like to regard TIME as a forth dimension. Really we should view SPACE & TIME as the same thing.
An objects location is only subject to its duration IE “where is it?” where is it when – when are you going to be there?
This is where it all becomes a bit philosophical, but the principle of SPACE/TIME as the same is solid. Without distance there is NO time between them –without time, there is NO distance between points.
So the universe is expanding IE SPACE/TIME is expanding, now think about this, if space is expanding, time is expanding – everything is expanding. It is a fantastic notion to think all motion and unfolding events is the subject of expanding SPACE/TIME plus it makes perfect sense…
TIME & ITS RELATION TO VELOCITY
TIME/SPACE (note that I have swapped the term space/time, this is to provoke our view on the concept and to give emphasis on its relationship) is expanding, but at what rate? And does the velocity of expansion have credence on our reality?
The fabric of our universe is expanding; the fabric is made up of 3 well known dimensions, but could dimensions be the direct product of expansion IE if expansion were to suddenly stop what would happen to TIME/SPACE? This is where our brains freeze up, welcome to the event horizon – The Singularity
The speed that the universe is expanding plays a fundamental role in causality and pays homage to GR & SR
The expansion velocity is the ultimate constant within our universe, it sets the numbers of everything and our reality is determined. The value and properties of mass & energy all behave and interact with the expansion velocity – M-theorists believe this to be the Higgs field…
Expansion theory simplifies the Higgs field – it is not submitted as an entity, but as a number, a constant, an ultimate law to which everything must interact with – THE EXPANSION VELOCITY.
Mass, Gravity & expansion
Mass and its value is a subtraction of the expansion velocity IE mass dampens and resists the expansion velocity; thus slowing down expansion within its occupied domain. TIME/SPACE is slowed down and shrunk creating a field, an area of slowed down TIME/SPACE the universe is stretching and pulling, expanding in all directions, yet mass is holding back, the energy within mass is so great it can not keep up with the expansion velocity, thus we have GRAVITY…
Gravity Pulls, or does it? Gravity resists… Gravity is NOT a fundamental force; it does not pull. Mass creates resistance within the TIME/SPACE domain.
Many of us are aware that gravity distorts time, but little is said about the distortion of Space – TIME/SPACE is the same (EXPANSION) space is shrunk or slowed down hence the accumulative effect of gravity. Once matter is in the dampening or compressing field of expansion (gravity) the very domain it inhabits it shrunk, therefore it has nowhere else to go but to accumulate within the gravity well.
BLACK HOLES
Black holes are the ultimate gravity well. It is the point where TIME/SPACE is slowed down so much we are faced with the brain freezing concept of the singularity…
The expansion velocity is reduced to zero, thus causality collapses. TIME/SPACE, the expansion of the universe stops completely. Take a moment to imagine that…
Height, length, width, curvature and time STOPS in fact ceases to exist… but by the term “ceases” I have indicated TIME, the event horizon is NOT cessation of existence.
Black holes are the result of the accumulation of matter billions of years ago. Imagine that there are galaxies out there that we can NOT see because the light has not yet reached us, we can calls this visible light horizon that is how far away they are. This is another way to view an event horizon. We can use distance to gather an understanding of a light horizon. The event horizon of a black hole is similar; the distance in TIME from the point when resistance to the expansion velocity began is too far for us to render. Like trying to view light from a distance of a million light years from a light source that began half a million years ago…
This is one of the fascinating concepts of expansion theory and it works in unification with Einstein’s theory of Relativity. The future is feeding the present and the past stores information from the “relative” future.
Destiny states that our own sun will become a super-dense body, possibly contribute to a black hole, at that time it will be a massive gravity well sucking in everything. Even our own planet is destined to be swallowed up by our own sun; that is the future. The process is what we are witnessing in our present, the paradox is that the future has all ready happened…(destiny)
Expansion theory simplifies and tames our understanding of the universe, it is a way to view the universe without complication and mechanically. The overwhelming lord of laws is the very fact that the universe is expanding and by the value of its expansion velocity sets a new universal constant.
THE SPEED OF LIGHT – DARK ENERGY
The speed of light is very, very fast, or is it? Einstein theorized that TIME slows down when we reach greater velocity, many experiments have been done to support this theory and it is now widely accepted as a very real phenomenon of nature. TIME DILATION is a truly mind boggling concept, especially for those who do not like regarding TIME as anything else but an abstract concept.
TIME/SPACE or SPACE/TIME doesn’t matter, it is the same thing, the very fabric of SPACE/TIME is expanding, stretching, pulling even tearing the universe apart. (see cosmic strings) we recently discovered the presents of Dark Energy, a force of overwhelming proportions accelerating the expansion of the universe.
Does this contradict expansion theory… if the expansion velocity is a universal constant (Higgs field) the governing number that all mass/energy calculates itself to. Would an increasing acceleration of expansion destroy any notion of the expansion velocity being a universal constant?
This is where Expansion theory starts to become quite radical, yet remarkably fitting.
Our level of resistance to expansion is continuously increasing, as I mentioned earlier destiny has it that inevitably our sun will continue to gather mass and maybe our sun will become just a small amount of mass in a super-massive black hole.
The point is that the TIME/SPACE domain we occupy is forever slowing down, resisting expansion more and more as mass continues to accumulate and dampen the expansion velocity.
From our observations we have calculated that the expansion of the universe is speeding up… or is it?
Is the expansion of the universe speeding up, or are we slowing down?
If I was traveling in a vehicle that was reducing speed, but the car in front of me remained at a constant velocity, my initial observation would be that the car in front is accelerating away from me, when in fact it is I the observer who is slowing down.
Dark energy is the subject of much debate, the underlying force that drives expansion and according to expansion theory it can be said Dark Energy literally powers the universe, because the very nature of expansion is what gives us time and its dimensions. IE SPACE/TIME.
NUCLEAR REACTION & RADIOACTIVE DECAY
Amongst many things Expansion theory mechanically defines, the behavior of mass/energy is beautifully elaborated on.
The resisting expansion properties of mass is the result of a mathematical conundrum of sub-atomic particles interacting with the value of the expansion velocity (Higgs field) it is my belief that the fundamental sub-atomic building blocks (see The Standard Model) does not posses independent behavior properties, but instead they merely posses a value (shape or number) that calculates itself with the expansion velocity constant (Higgs Field) thus the calculation, or interaction with EVC (Expansion Velocity Constant) gives the particle its independent behavior pattern.
Our sun is a nuclear furnace, transforming hydrogen into helium along with the heavier elements… the transformation of matter into energy is truly remarkable and again we must ask WHY?
Why does this life giving phenomena happen?
During the very early stages of the universe the Expansion Velocity was not constant; many scientists have speculated an era called the inflationary period, where the universe went through a tremendous expansion velocity. This is the reason why it becomes very hard to calculate the precise moment of the big bang. Mass/energy and causality itself was caught in an uncertain ever changing master number. The Higgs field or Expansion velocity was not constant (causality and reality as we understand it is set by the Expansion velocity or Higgs field) the master number kept changing allowing very different realities to emerge, like anti-matter. It was only until the expansion velocity stabilized and an Expansion Velocity Constant was born, the sub-atomic world had something to calculate itself with – it was this master number that allowed matter to defeat anti-matter and present us with the reality we observe today.
Matter is vast amounts of energy locked up, does the resisting properties of expansion play apart in this. Mathematically and according to expansion theory, matter is somehow changing the Expansion velocity constant… doesn’t sound very constant. The truth is that the EVC is not really a constant when we view it over the age of the universe; however we can safely regard the EVC as pretty constant during the small blip in time that us, the observer, inhabits.
There is evidence that slight changes in EM values changed ever so slightly billions of years ago; was this a slight variation in the EVC.
All matter was created during the early universe, during a time when the EVC had a different value. It was a time when the sub-atomic world calculated it’s self into the fundamental forces along with anti-matter and into matter and possibly dark matter; however during the time of the creation of matter the EVC began to speed up again but not enough to annihilate matter back into its sub-atomic form, the energy became frozen and locked up, the EVC had not sped up enough to pull the energy apart completely, but instead the energy slowly leaked away IE Radio Active Decay.
Matter is Energy self calculated to exist in a slower Expansion Velocity domain – it is eloquent to imagine that matter is energy self designed to exist in a slower expanding reality, or to put simply – Energy out of sync
The gravity field is the domain or area in habited by matter, the transition area from one speed of TIME/SPACE to another.
The birth of a star is a momentous event of nature. This is the point where the residence to expansion finally breaks. Imagine the force contained in a bow when it is pulled back, if I was to keep pulling it would eventually break releasing enormous amounts of energy.
Expansion theory applies the same logic. Matter desperately resists the expansion of SPACE/TIME though the resistance only bends and compresses space which accumulates more mass and thus more resistance, the force of expansion or Dark Energy is overwhelming over the countless millions of years of accumulating more and more resistance until, like a snapping branch of a tree, matter breaks. The atom is split – the nuclear reaction gives birth to a star.
I hope you have enjoyed this elaboration of Expansion Theory and I would like to thank all those whom have E-mailed me with your support.
Please note that this is a shortened version of a detailed paper I am currently writing. I welcome all comments feed back and debate as I regard everyone’s views as useful research on how to communicate the theory.
Thank You
Happy pondering…
It is often over looked yet, vitally significant that in order for something to exist, there is the need for something, for something to exist in.
Our answers can only ever be as good as our questions.
I have written many posts on Expansion theory & The Speed of Time. I have enjoyed everyone’s feed back, debate and criticism, for that is what science is about.
Expansion theory attempts to give ONE answer to many of natures phenomena, it provides a mechanical and sensible model for us to view the universe.
One of the greatest proposals presented by Expansion theory is that Gravity is NOT a force IE NOT a force that should be associated with the other 3 – Weak Nuclear – Strong Nuclear and Electro Magnetic.
No explanation to why gravity is so week has yet been determined; however string theorists believe that gravity is a force that slips and spread itself through 11 different dimensions. It’s a fair stab in the dark answer but is the real question of gravity complete? Why does gravity effect time? When gravity is implemented in its most extreme (black holes) how gravity gives rise to the singularity –event horizon within a black hole.
Even though gravity appears to be a very real fundamental force of nature, its properties are far to unique to be included with the others – I think many mathematician string/M-theorists would love to see the back of gravity because it simply is not compatible with unification; however we can not discard gravity as a F-force unless we find another explanation to its nature.
The Big Bang – the universe began to expand…
This is another example where the questions stops short, what was expanding? SPACE & TIME.
I have enjoyed the debates given on this forum about TIME. Some like to regard TIME as just abstract concept others like to regard TIME as a forth dimension. Really we should view SPACE & TIME as the same thing.
An objects location is only subject to its duration IE “where is it?” where is it when – when are you going to be there?
This is where it all becomes a bit philosophical, but the principle of SPACE/TIME as the same is solid. Without distance there is NO time between them –without time, there is NO distance between points.
So the universe is expanding IE SPACE/TIME is expanding, now think about this, if space is expanding, time is expanding – everything is expanding. It is a fantastic notion to think all motion and unfolding events is the subject of expanding SPACE/TIME plus it makes perfect sense…
TIME & ITS RELATION TO VELOCITY
TIME/SPACE (note that I have swapped the term space/time, this is to provoke our view on the concept and to give emphasis on its relationship) is expanding, but at what rate? And does the velocity of expansion have credence on our reality?
The fabric of our universe is expanding; the fabric is made up of 3 well known dimensions, but could dimensions be the direct product of expansion IE if expansion were to suddenly stop what would happen to TIME/SPACE? This is where our brains freeze up, welcome to the event horizon – The Singularity
The speed that the universe is expanding plays a fundamental role in causality and pays homage to GR & SR
The expansion velocity is the ultimate constant within our universe, it sets the numbers of everything and our reality is determined. The value and properties of mass & energy all behave and interact with the expansion velocity – M-theorists believe this to be the Higgs field…
Expansion theory simplifies the Higgs field – it is not submitted as an entity, but as a number, a constant, an ultimate law to which everything must interact with – THE EXPANSION VELOCITY.
Mass, Gravity & expansion
Mass and its value is a subtraction of the expansion velocity IE mass dampens and resists the expansion velocity; thus slowing down expansion within its occupied domain. TIME/SPACE is slowed down and shrunk creating a field, an area of slowed down TIME/SPACE the universe is stretching and pulling, expanding in all directions, yet mass is holding back, the energy within mass is so great it can not keep up with the expansion velocity, thus we have GRAVITY…
Gravity Pulls, or does it? Gravity resists… Gravity is NOT a fundamental force; it does not pull. Mass creates resistance within the TIME/SPACE domain.
Many of us are aware that gravity distorts time, but little is said about the distortion of Space – TIME/SPACE is the same (EXPANSION) space is shrunk or slowed down hence the accumulative effect of gravity. Once matter is in the dampening or compressing field of expansion (gravity) the very domain it inhabits it shrunk, therefore it has nowhere else to go but to accumulate within the gravity well.
BLACK HOLES
Black holes are the ultimate gravity well. It is the point where TIME/SPACE is slowed down so much we are faced with the brain freezing concept of the singularity…
The expansion velocity is reduced to zero, thus causality collapses. TIME/SPACE, the expansion of the universe stops completely. Take a moment to imagine that…
Height, length, width, curvature and time STOPS in fact ceases to exist… but by the term “ceases” I have indicated TIME, the event horizon is NOT cessation of existence.
Black holes are the result of the accumulation of matter billions of years ago. Imagine that there are galaxies out there that we can NOT see because the light has not yet reached us, we can calls this visible light horizon that is how far away they are. This is another way to view an event horizon. We can use distance to gather an understanding of a light horizon. The event horizon of a black hole is similar; the distance in TIME from the point when resistance to the expansion velocity began is too far for us to render. Like trying to view light from a distance of a million light years from a light source that began half a million years ago…
This is one of the fascinating concepts of expansion theory and it works in unification with Einstein’s theory of Relativity. The future is feeding the present and the past stores information from the “relative” future.
Destiny states that our own sun will become a super-dense body, possibly contribute to a black hole, at that time it will be a massive gravity well sucking in everything. Even our own planet is destined to be swallowed up by our own sun; that is the future. The process is what we are witnessing in our present, the paradox is that the future has all ready happened…(destiny)
Expansion theory simplifies and tames our understanding of the universe, it is a way to view the universe without complication and mechanically. The overwhelming lord of laws is the very fact that the universe is expanding and by the value of its expansion velocity sets a new universal constant.
THE SPEED OF LIGHT – DARK ENERGY
The speed of light is very, very fast, or is it? Einstein theorized that TIME slows down when we reach greater velocity, many experiments have been done to support this theory and it is now widely accepted as a very real phenomenon of nature. TIME DILATION is a truly mind boggling concept, especially for those who do not like regarding TIME as anything else but an abstract concept.
TIME/SPACE or SPACE/TIME doesn’t matter, it is the same thing, the very fabric of SPACE/TIME is expanding, stretching, pulling even tearing the universe apart. (see cosmic strings) we recently discovered the presents of Dark Energy, a force of overwhelming proportions accelerating the expansion of the universe.
Does this contradict expansion theory… if the expansion velocity is a universal constant (Higgs field) the governing number that all mass/energy calculates itself to. Would an increasing acceleration of expansion destroy any notion of the expansion velocity being a universal constant?
This is where Expansion theory starts to become quite radical, yet remarkably fitting.
Our level of resistance to expansion is continuously increasing, as I mentioned earlier destiny has it that inevitably our sun will continue to gather mass and maybe our sun will become just a small amount of mass in a super-massive black hole.
The point is that the TIME/SPACE domain we occupy is forever slowing down, resisting expansion more and more as mass continues to accumulate and dampen the expansion velocity.
From our observations we have calculated that the expansion of the universe is speeding up… or is it?
Is the expansion of the universe speeding up, or are we slowing down?
If I was traveling in a vehicle that was reducing speed, but the car in front of me remained at a constant velocity, my initial observation would be that the car in front is accelerating away from me, when in fact it is I the observer who is slowing down.
Dark energy is the subject of much debate, the underlying force that drives expansion and according to expansion theory it can be said Dark Energy literally powers the universe, because the very nature of expansion is what gives us time and its dimensions. IE SPACE/TIME.
NUCLEAR REACTION & RADIOACTIVE DECAY
Amongst many things Expansion theory mechanically defines, the behavior of mass/energy is beautifully elaborated on.
The resisting expansion properties of mass is the result of a mathematical conundrum of sub-atomic particles interacting with the value of the expansion velocity (Higgs field) it is my belief that the fundamental sub-atomic building blocks (see The Standard Model) does not posses independent behavior properties, but instead they merely posses a value (shape or number) that calculates itself with the expansion velocity constant (Higgs Field) thus the calculation, or interaction with EVC (Expansion Velocity Constant) gives the particle its independent behavior pattern.
Our sun is a nuclear furnace, transforming hydrogen into helium along with the heavier elements… the transformation of matter into energy is truly remarkable and again we must ask WHY?
Why does this life giving phenomena happen?
During the very early stages of the universe the Expansion Velocity was not constant; many scientists have speculated an era called the inflationary period, where the universe went through a tremendous expansion velocity. This is the reason why it becomes very hard to calculate the precise moment of the big bang. Mass/energy and causality itself was caught in an uncertain ever changing master number. The Higgs field or Expansion velocity was not constant (causality and reality as we understand it is set by the Expansion velocity or Higgs field) the master number kept changing allowing very different realities to emerge, like anti-matter. It was only until the expansion velocity stabilized and an Expansion Velocity Constant was born, the sub-atomic world had something to calculate itself with – it was this master number that allowed matter to defeat anti-matter and present us with the reality we observe today.
Matter is vast amounts of energy locked up, does the resisting properties of expansion play apart in this. Mathematically and according to expansion theory, matter is somehow changing the Expansion velocity constant… doesn’t sound very constant. The truth is that the EVC is not really a constant when we view it over the age of the universe; however we can safely regard the EVC as pretty constant during the small blip in time that us, the observer, inhabits.
There is evidence that slight changes in EM values changed ever so slightly billions of years ago; was this a slight variation in the EVC.
All matter was created during the early universe, during a time when the EVC had a different value. It was a time when the sub-atomic world calculated it’s self into the fundamental forces along with anti-matter and into matter and possibly dark matter; however during the time of the creation of matter the EVC began to speed up again but not enough to annihilate matter back into its sub-atomic form, the energy became frozen and locked up, the EVC had not sped up enough to pull the energy apart completely, but instead the energy slowly leaked away IE Radio Active Decay.
Matter is Energy self calculated to exist in a slower Expansion Velocity domain – it is eloquent to imagine that matter is energy self designed to exist in a slower expanding reality, or to put simply – Energy out of sync
The gravity field is the domain or area in habited by matter, the transition area from one speed of TIME/SPACE to another.
The birth of a star is a momentous event of nature. This is the point where the residence to expansion finally breaks. Imagine the force contained in a bow when it is pulled back, if I was to keep pulling it would eventually break releasing enormous amounts of energy.
Expansion theory applies the same logic. Matter desperately resists the expansion of SPACE/TIME though the resistance only bends and compresses space which accumulates more mass and thus more resistance, the force of expansion or Dark Energy is overwhelming over the countless millions of years of accumulating more and more resistance until, like a snapping branch of a tree, matter breaks. The atom is split – the nuclear reaction gives birth to a star.
I hope you have enjoyed this elaboration of Expansion Theory and I would like to thank all those whom have E-mailed me with your support.
Please note that this is a shortened version of a detailed paper I am currently writing. I welcome all comments feed back and debate as I regard everyone’s views as useful research on how to communicate the theory.
Thank You
Happy pondering…
QUOTE
NEVERDRY Posted: Nov 4 2007, 07:23 PM An objects location is only subject to its duration IE “where is it?” where is it when – when are you going to be there?
consider 3 points (a,b,c) that do not move relative to each other, you can measure distance ie you can measure the distance a-b relative to b-c or a-c. if one or more of these points move, you require a new dimension in order to measure the changing distance of a-b relative to b-c or a-c.
although the unification of space and time is a triumph, space is more fundamental than time, for as the above example shows you can have space without time, but you can not have time without space, i will have to disagree with your statement
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| NEVERDRY Posted: Nov 4 2007, 07:23 PM An objects location is only subject to its duration IE “where is it?” where is it when – when are you going to be there? |
consider 3 points (a,b,c) that do not move relative to each other, you can measure distance ie you can measure the distance a-b relative to b-c or a-c. if one or more of these points move, you require a new dimension in order to measure the changing distance of a-b relative to b-c or a-c.
although the unification of space and time is a triumph, space is more fundamental than time, for as the above example shows you can have space without time, but you can not have time without space, i will have to disagree with your statement
without time, there is NO distance between points.
QUOTE (kjw+Nov 7 2007, 06:02 AM)
consider 3 points (a,b,c) that do not move relative to each other, you can measure distance ie you can measure the distance a-b relative to b-c or a-c. if one or more of these points move, you require a new dimension in order to measure the changing distance of a-b relative to b-c or a-c.
although the unification of space and time is a triumph, space is more fundamental than time, for as the above example shows you can have space without time, but you can not have time without space, i will have to disagree with your statement
stars and galaxy move into space only not in time
time is duration of movement (expansion)
without time, there is NO distance between points.
time is duration of movement of an object between points of space
although the unification of space and time is a triumph, space is more fundamental than time, for as the above example shows you can have space without time, but you can not have time without space, i will have to disagree with your statement
stars and galaxy move into space only not in time
time is duration of movement (expansion)
without time, there is NO distance between points.
time is duration of movement of an object between points of space
if
QUOTE
amrit Posted: Today at 6:27 PM time is duration of movement
and QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| amrit Posted: Today at 6:27 PM time is duration of movement |
and without time, there is NO distance between points.
then please indicate where the comment
is an impossibility ie how is it that the absence of movement between a,b and c causes the relative distance between a,b and c to be non-existant.
is an impossibility ie how is it that the absence of movement between a,b and c causes the relative distance between a,b and c to be non-existant.
time is duration of movement of an object between points of space
then what is a duration ?
as for
then please indicate where the comment
QUOTE
kjw Posted: Nov 7 2007, 06:02 AM consider 3 points (a,b,c) that do not move relative to each other, you can measure distance ie you
can measure the distance a-b relative to b-c or a-c.
can measure the distance a-b relative to b-c or a-c.
is an impossibility ie how is it that the absence of movement between a,b and c causes the relative distance between a,b and c to be non-existant.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| kjw Posted: Nov 7 2007, 06:02 AM consider 3 points (a,b,c) that do not move relative to each other, you can measure distance ie you can measure the distance a-b relative to b-c or a-c. |
is an impossibility ie how is it that the absence of movement between a,b and c causes the relative distance between a,b and c to be non-existant.
time is duration of movement of an object between points of space
then what is a duration ?
duration is relation between two material change
one is measured and another is a tool for measurement
and in relativity we see measurement is relative...got it ?
one is measured and another is a tool for measurement
and in relativity we see measurement is relative...got it ?
QUOTE
amrit Posted on Today at 4:10 AM duration is relation between two material change one is measured and another is a tool for measurement and in relativity we see measurement is relative...got it ?
i think that expresses your point of view better than using the term duration in a description of time as for
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| amrit Posted on Today at 4:10 AM duration is relation between two material change one is measured and another is a tool for measurement and in relativity we see measurement is relative...got it ? |
i think that expresses your point of view better than using the term duration in a description of time
as for
kjw Posted on Nov 11 2007, 11:40 AM
if
and
and
without time, there is NO distance between points.
then please indicate where the comment
is an impossibility ie how is it that the absence of movement between a,b and c causes the relative distance between a,b and c to be non-existant.
have you constructed a response yet ? i ask as it seems we have similar ideas about time but when it comes to the relation between time and distance we differ. this difference is seen in the matter of i think it is possible to have distance without time and you without think without time there is no distance.
as for
kjw Posted on Nov 11 2007, 11:40 AM
if
QUOTE
amrit Posted: Today at 6:27 PM time is duration of movement
and
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| amrit Posted: Today at 6:27 PM time is duration of movement |
and
without time, there is NO distance between points.
then please indicate where the comment
QUOTE
kjw Posted: Nov 7 2007, 06:02 AM consider 3 points (a,b,c) that do not move relative to each other, you can measure distance ie you
can measure the distance a-b relative to b-c or a-c.
can measure the distance a-b relative to b-c or a-c.
is an impossibility ie how is it that the absence of movement between a,b and c causes the relative distance between a,b and c to be non-existant.
have you constructed a response yet ? i ask as it seems we have similar ideas about time but when it comes to the relation between time and distance we differ. this difference is seen in the matter of i think it is possible to have distance without time and you without think without time there is no distance.
Subjective time, which is what we usually refer to, is a measure of activity against a standard, i.e. a clock. The clock with its uniform periodic sequence of events/ticks serves the same function as a ruler with uniformly spaced marks.
We achieve more precision if we have smaller spacings on the ruler or a higher frequency for the clock.
"duration of movement" is not time, it's an example of measuring motion, usually to determine speed. Motion of an object is not required. Any hot (radiating) object can change in brightness and a time assigned, yet there is no motion.
SR time dilation is not time slowing down, it's less activity for the moving frame,
therefore less ticks (less time).
We achieve more precision if we have smaller spacings on the ruler or a higher frequency for the clock.
"duration of movement" is not time, it's an example of measuring motion, usually to determine speed. Motion of an object is not required. Any hot (radiating) object can change in brightness and a time assigned, yet there is no motion.
SR time dilation is not time slowing down, it's less activity for the moving frame,
therefore less ticks (less time).
QUOTE
phyti Posted: Today at 3:40 PM Subjective time
is there objective time ?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| phyti Posted: Today at 3:40 PM Subjective time |
is there objective time ?
Any hot (radiating) object can change in brightness and a time assigned, yet there is no motion.
Any hot (radiating) object can change in brightness and a time assigned, yet there is no motion.
a change in brightness of a radiating object is related to the change in motion of the particles in the object http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation
QUOTE
SR time dilation is not time slowing down, it's less activity for the moving frame,
as seen from the stationary frame. the moving frame experiences no change in activity. which frame experiences objective time then ?
Well, as long as we are playing the philosophical meandering game, I'll take a shot.
In my opinion, if all change stopped, time would still pass. There would just be no way to measure it. If all started again, there would be no way to detect what had occured.
I will agree we measure time through change, and I have a hard time imagining PHYSICAL change without motion. I'm not sure how meaningful that is.
In my opinion, if all change stopped, time would still pass. There would just be no way to measure it. If all started again, there would be no way to detect what had occured.
I will agree we measure time through change, and I have a hard time imagining PHYSICAL change without motion. I'm not sure how meaningful that is.
QUOTE (kjw+Nov 15 2007, 06:16 AM)
is there objective time ?
a change in brightness of a radiating object is related to the change in motion of the particles in the object http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation
as seen from the stationary frame. the moving frame experiences no change in activity. which frame experiences objective time then ?
I don't know, and am not aware of any experimental evidence for it.
It seems like all our knowledge is related to measurement!
I don't know, and am not aware of any experimental evidence for it.
It seems like all our knowledge is related to measurement!
change in motion of the particles in the object
A good point, but with another question. If an electron emits a photon as a result of changing energy levels, is it really "moving' differently?
An object can brighten from reflected light, no internal motion there.
If they are diverging the 'stationary' frame sees and measures the outgoing frame with less activity (slow clock). It's the occupant of the moving frame that isn't aware of this because his brain is also experiencing less activity. Use the analogy of the spaceship that contracts to half length. The occupants ruler also contracts to half length, so his measurement of the ship is constant.
Each one can only experience their subjective time, which is speed dependent.
meBigGuy:
If they are diverging the 'stationary' frame sees and measures the outgoing frame with less activity (slow clock). It's the occupant of the moving frame that isn't aware of this because his brain is also experiencing less activity. Use the analogy of the spaceship that contracts to half length. The occupants ruler also contracts to half length, so his measurement of the ship is constant.
Each one can only experience their subjective time, which is speed dependent.
meBigGuy:
In my opinion, if all change stopped, time would still pass
We would be dead and not aware of it.
Can you say that a different way? I don't get it.
Let's use a particle analogy.
If there were no intervening matter, your flashlight photons would make it to the end of the universe.
But, your flashlight emits a certain number of photons. Some, most, or all of those collide with matter in space and are absorbed.
So, I don't know what you mean by lag, and before.
Are you just saying that a faraway object must become bright enough that some of its photons make it here? If so, I'm not clear what the point it.
It's interesting to remember that photons don't age.
a change in brightness of a radiating object is related to the change in motion of the particles in the object http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation
as seen from the stationary frame. the moving frame experiences no change in activity. which frame experiences objective time then ?
QUOTE
is there objective time ?
I don't know, and am not aware of any experimental evidence for it.
It seems like all our knowledge is related to measurement!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| is there objective time ? |
I don't know, and am not aware of any experimental evidence for it.
It seems like all our knowledge is related to measurement!
change in motion of the particles in the object
A good point, but with another question. If an electron emits a photon as a result of changing energy levels, is it really "moving' differently?
An object can brighten from reflected light, no internal motion there.
QUOTE
as seen from the stationary frame. the moving frame experiences no change in activity. which frame experiences objective time then ?
If they are diverging the 'stationary' frame sees and measures the outgoing frame with less activity (slow clock). It's the occupant of the moving frame that isn't aware of this because his brain is also experiencing less activity. Use the analogy of the spaceship that contracts to half length. The occupants ruler also contracts to half length, so his measurement of the ship is constant.
Each one can only experience their subjective time, which is speed dependent.
meBigGuy:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| as seen from the stationary frame. the moving frame experiences no change in activity. which frame experiences objective time then ? |
If they are diverging the 'stationary' frame sees and measures the outgoing frame with less activity (slow clock). It's the occupant of the moving frame that isn't aware of this because his brain is also experiencing less activity. Use the analogy of the spaceship that contracts to half length. The occupants ruler also contracts to half length, so his measurement of the ship is constant.
Each one can only experience their subjective time, which is speed dependent.
meBigGuy:
In my opinion, if all change stopped, time would still pass
We would be dead and not aware of it.
one thing which strikes me as odd is using the time light took to travel from distant stars to tell the age of the universe.
This would assume that light has a finite existence without taking into account , What could measure "pre-light existence.' If we see a star or galaxy, it has a greater history than as a star and the feebleness of the glow would have dissipated long before a measurable stream could be produced.
So the question becomes . 'at what stage does light have the legs to get from the other side of the universe(by which we measure it's age)'
Since I can shine a torch into space which has no chance of being seen on the other side of space, there must be a lag while enough energy is absorbed by the universe in general before it starts a journey that will bring it to earth.
Cheers
Iseason
This would assume that light has a finite existence without taking into account , What could measure "pre-light existence.' If we see a star or galaxy, it has a greater history than as a star and the feebleness of the glow would have dissipated long before a measurable stream could be produced.
So the question becomes . 'at what stage does light have the legs to get from the other side of the universe(by which we measure it's age)'
Since I can shine a torch into space which has no chance of being seen on the other side of space, there must be a lag while enough energy is absorbed by the universe in general before it starts a journey that will bring it to earth.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE
there must be a lag while enough energy is absorbed by the universe in general before it starts a journey that will bring it to earth.
Can you say that a different way? I don't get it.
Let's use a particle analogy.
If there were no intervening matter, your flashlight photons would make it to the end of the universe.
But, your flashlight emits a certain number of photons. Some, most, or all of those collide with matter in space and are absorbed.
So, I don't know what you mean by lag, and before.
Are you just saying that a faraway object must become bright enough that some of its photons make it here? If so, I'm not clear what the point it.
It's interesting to remember that photons don't age.
QUOTE
phyti Posted: Yesterday at 1:34 PM If an electron emits a photon as a result of changing energy levels, is it really "moving' differently?
after emission the electron would have lower energy, i would not consider it possible for the electron to maintain a prior state after losing energy. the electron would move closer to the nucleus after emission, so i guess you could consider this as movement. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| phyti Posted: Yesterday at 1:34 PM If an electron emits a photon as a result of changing energy levels, is it really "moving' differently? |
after emission the electron would have lower energy, i would not consider it possible for the electron to maintain a prior state after losing energy. the electron would move closer to the nucleus after emission, so i guess you could consider this as movement.
An object can brighten from reflected light, no internal motion there.
An object can brighten from reflected light, no internal motion there.
but it is not the object itself brightening. for an object to reflect light some other object must first emit the light.
I'm trying to find examples of change without motion and thus using reflected light.
The point being, as long as we perceive things at rest, time is passing for us. The light has it's origin elswhere which probably involves motion. Now my question is:
does all change in energy involve motion?
The point being, as long as we perceive things at rest, time is passing for us. The light has it's origin elswhere which probably involves motion. Now my question is:
does all change in energy involve motion?
Motion and stillness can be one and the same thing.
I would rewrite Newtons law as:
When two objects have the same velocity (speed and direction), they are at rest relative to each other
Then rest is not a distinct state different from motion, but a special case of motion.
When two objects have the same velocity (speed and direction), they are at rest relative to each other
Then rest is not a distinct state different from motion, but a special case of motion.
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.