Is the passage of time directly proportional to volume of space?
While time is a linear metric, the volume of space is not. Then again, it's not like we have accurate estimates on the size of the universe. If by "directly proportional" you mean "both increasing" then your answer is yes.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 8 2012, 05:18 PM)
While time is a linear metric, the volume of space is not. Then again, it's not like we have accurate estimates on the size of the universe. If by "directly proportional" you mean "both increasing" then your answer is yes.
Not even close.
Everything = 0
Matter is nothing more than a distortion in space.
In other words time=the amount of spacial distortion.
The more spacial distortion the more matter thus time passes slower until the point of singularity where time stops all together.
Not even close.
Everything = 0
Matter is nothing more than a distortion in space.
In other words time=the amount of spacial distortion.
The more spacial distortion the more matter thus time passes slower until the point of singularity where time stops all together.
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Jul 8 2012, 04:00 PM)
Is the passage of time directly proportional to volume of space?
Kepler's Third Law (somewhat simplified):
Period^2 = 4*pi^2/GM * Distance^3
T = s^2/m^3 * d^3
Just for fun, try substituting Time for Volume in to Boyle's Law: p_1V_1 = p_2V_2 as I did just yesterday. (p = pressure and V = Volume)
- RF
Kepler's Third Law (somewhat simplified):
Period^2 = 4*pi^2/GM * Distance^3
T = s^2/m^3 * d^3
Just for fun, try substituting Time for Volume in to Boyle's Law: p_1V_1 = p_2V_2 as I did just yesterday. (p = pressure and V = Volume)
- RF
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Jul 8 2012, 05:59 PM)
Kepler's Third Law (somewhat simplified):
Period^2 = 4*pi^2/GM * Distance^3
T = s^2/m^3 * d^3
Typo demon strikes again...
T^2 = s^2/m^3 * d^3
Period^2 = 4*pi^2/GM * Distance^3
T = s^2/m^3 * d^3
Typo demon strikes again...
T^2 = s^2/m^3 * d^3
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Jul 8 2012, 09:00 AM)
Is the passage of time directly proportional to volume of space?
At the top of my chapter on the big bang you'll see the first equation for the FRW line element. In it there is a time dependent function a(ct) which is squared.
a(ct) is a scale factor describing length. The distance of space expands linearly with it, so volumes expand proportional to a(ct) cubed. For a flat universe with zero cosmological constant which ours nearly is, this function is proportional to the square root of cosmological time, the time coordinate used as that line element is written. This means that volumes increase proportional with this time to the 3/2 power.
At the top of my chapter on the big bang you'll see the first equation for the FRW line element. In it there is a time dependent function a(ct) which is squared.
a(ct) is a scale factor describing length. The distance of space expands linearly with it, so volumes expand proportional to a(ct) cubed. For a flat universe with zero cosmological constant which ours nearly is, this function is proportional to the square root of cosmological time, the time coordinate used as that line element is written. This means that volumes increase proportional with this time to the 3/2 power.
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Jul 8 2012, 04:00 PM)
Is the passage of time directly proportional to volume of space?
Can this be observed in our natural surroundings?
Math is a good method to describe physical laws.
But the real test is in the real world as in aircraft design.
Can we see the affects of spacial volume on earth?
For instance on a train , when you look around inside the train nothing apears to be moving.
But When you look out the window every thing close apears to be moving very fast ,as you look further and further away from the train every thing apears to moving slower and slower.
Would this be from volume observed?
Can this be observed in our natural surroundings?
Math is a good method to describe physical laws.
But the real test is in the real world as in aircraft design.
Can we see the affects of spacial volume on earth?
For instance on a train , when you look around inside the train nothing apears to be moving.
But When you look out the window every thing close apears to be moving very fast ,as you look further and further away from the train every thing apears to moving slower and slower.
Would this be from volume observed?
In yet another one of his threads, Whitewolf asks a question so that he can insult the answerers and promote his own idiotic ideas.
Now that you've written that in equation form, it makes it true, right?
Now that you've written that in equation form, it makes it true, right?
Matter is nothing more than a distortion in space.
According to whom?
I'm torn between wanting to help you wrap your head around your own idea and telling you to stop wasting your and everyone else's time with your passive aggressive troll posts.
QUOTE
Everything = 0
Now that you've written that in equation form, it makes it true, right?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Everything = 0 |
Now that you've written that in equation form, it makes it true, right?
Matter is nothing more than a distortion in space.
According to whom?
QUOTE
In other words time=the amount of spacial distortion.
The more spacial distortion the more matter thus time passes slower until the point of singularity where time stops all together.
The more spacial distortion the more matter thus time passes slower until the point of singularity where time stops all together.
I'm torn between wanting to help you wrap your head around your own idea and telling you to stop wasting your and everyone else's time with your passive aggressive troll posts.
I'm not insulting anyone.
I think you should mellow out.
Go take a pill or just go out with your friends and forget about physics for a week or two then come back and talk when your not so uptight.
I think you should mellow out.
Go take a pill or just go out with your friends and forget about physics for a week or two then come back and talk when your not so uptight.
I guess I'm not explaining myself properly.
Ok let's say you where traveling at the speed of light.
What is happening to your body at light speed?
You are occuping more space, you have artificially gained more mass.
What else has happened?
Time has slowed relative to your normal state.
Conclusion
More mass =slower passage of time.
Less mass =faster passage of time.
Ok let's say you where traveling at the speed of light.
What is happening to your body at light speed?
You are occuping more space, you have artificially gained more mass.
What else has happened?
Time has slowed relative to your normal state.
Conclusion
More mass =slower passage of time.
Less mass =faster passage of time.
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Jul 9 2012, 02:31 AM)
I guess I'm not explaining myself properly.
Ok let's say you where traveling at the speed of light.
And lets say that the color blue is salty.
Based on the rest of what you ask I assume you mean to say close to.
close to, nothing.
close to, nothing.
You are occuping more space, you have artificially gained more mass.
Ok let's say you where traveling at the speed of light.
And lets say that the color blue is salty.
Based on the rest of what you ask I assume you mean to say close to.
QUOTE
What is happening to your body at light speed?
close to, nothing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What is happening to your body at light speed? |
close to, nothing.
You are occuping more space, you have artificially gained more mass.
No and no.
QUOTE
What else has happened?
Nothing.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What else has happened? |
Nothing.
Time has slowed relative to your normal state.
No, you are in your normal state. I think you mean so say that time on your watch runs slow according to whoever it was you were saying that you were traveling close to the speed of light with respect to. In that case the answer is that he also observes you to be flattened, not expanded along the direction of your motion.
False conclusions.
Time has slowed relative to your normal state.
No, you are in your normal state. I think you mean so say that time on your watch runs slow according to whoever it was you were saying that you were traveling close to the speed of light with respect to. In that case the answer is that he also observes you to be flattened, not expanded along the direction of your motion.
QUOTE
Conclusion
More mass =slower passage of time.
Less mass =faster passage of time.
More mass =slower passage of time.
Less mass =faster passage of time.
False conclusions.
If your satisfied with the standard model waitedavid137 its fine with me. Lol
Wether I have a watch or not is irrelevant lol
A time frame is a time frame.
You wouldn't know if time had been slowed and neither would your watch.
I said what meant and meant what I said.
Thanks and have a nice day.
Wether I have a watch or not is irrelevant lol
A time frame is a time frame.
You wouldn't know if time had been slowed and neither would your watch.
I said what meant and meant what I said.
Thanks and have a nice day.
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Jul 9 2012, 02:42 PM)
If your satisfied with the standard model waitedavid137 its fine with me. Lol
I don't know how you can be "not satisfied" with the standard model when you clearly don't understand it. I don't think you're even using the term "standard model" correctly.
Adding "lol" to that statement really took the cake.
Adding "lol" to that statement really took the cake.
A time frame is a time frame.
Excellent deduction, Sherlock.
Uhh, that's the point. You are never able to see if your time frame has been slowed down. Only by comparing your time with the time of someone in a different frame would you be able to tell.
I don't know how you can be "not satisfied" with the standard model when you clearly don't understand it. I don't think you're even using the term "standard model" correctly.
QUOTE
Wether I have a watch or not is irrelevant lol
Adding "lol" to that statement really took the cake.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Wether I have a watch or not is irrelevant lol |
Adding "lol" to that statement really took the cake.
A time frame is a time frame.
Excellent deduction, Sherlock.
QUOTE
You wouldn't know if time had been slowed and neither would your watch.
Uhh, that's the point. You are never able to see if your time frame has been slowed down. Only by comparing your time with the time of someone in a different frame would you be able to tell.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 9 2012, 07:08 PM)
I don't know how you can be "not satisfied" with the standard model when you clearly don't understand it. I don't think you're even using the term "standard model" correctly.
Adding "lol" to that statement really took the cake.
Excellent deduction, Sherlock.
Uhh, that's the point. You are never able to see if your time frame has been slowed down. Only by comparing your time with the time of someone in a different frame would you be able to tell.
In other words you have no clue.
And you call me Sherlock.
Nothing can be proven one way or the other.
YOU'RE JUST TROLLING AGAIN
Adding "lol" to that statement really took the cake.
Excellent deduction, Sherlock.
Uhh, that's the point. You are never able to see if your time frame has been slowed down. Only by comparing your time with the time of someone in a different frame would you be able to tell.
In other words you have no clue.
And you call me Sherlock.
Nothing can be proven one way or the other.
YOU'RE JUST TROLLING AGAIN
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Jul 9 2012, 05:54 PM)
In other words you have no clue.
And you call me Sherlock.
Nothing can be proven one way or the other.
YOU'RE JUST TROLLING AGAIN
I answered your question, but you responded with the nonsensical "everything = 0"
You don't want an answer, you just want someone to believe your nonsense.
And you call me Sherlock.
Nothing can be proven one way or the other.
YOU'RE JUST TROLLING AGAIN
I answered your question, but you responded with the nonsensical "everything = 0"
You don't want an answer, you just want someone to believe your nonsense.
Whitewolf4869,
You asked
What are you getting at. It seems to me that you are just arguing for the sake of argument.
As I see it I think waitedavid137 basically said yes.
What are you getting at. It seems to me that you are just arguing for the sake of argument.
As I see it I think waitedavid137 basically said yes.
The distance of space expands linearly with it, so volumes expand proportional to a(ct) cubed.
Then you started to spout a bunch of garbage about the standard model being wrong.
Are you saying no. What are you trying to say?
Are you just being antagonistic for the sake of antagonism?
You asked
QUOTE
Is the passage of time directly proportional to volume of space?
What are you getting at. It seems to me that you are just arguing for the sake of argument.
As I see it I think waitedavid137 basically said yes.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Is the passage of time directly proportional to volume of space? |
What are you getting at. It seems to me that you are just arguing for the sake of argument.
As I see it I think waitedavid137 basically said yes.
The distance of space expands linearly with it, so volumes expand proportional to a(ct) cubed.
Then you started to spout a bunch of garbage about the standard model being wrong.
Are you saying no. What are you trying to say?
Are you just being antagonistic for the sake of antagonism?
I'm not trying to argue with anyone.
Obviously time is a factor when anything happens.
That wasn't my point.
Perhaps I'm using the wrong terminology.
That could be why this concept so difficult for you to understand ?
Let's say space has mass very little but it has mass.
How much space would it take to make a black hole at the other end of the spectrum.
Time runs at diffrent speed depending on mass?
I'm just thinking I never said this was fact.
Obviously time is a factor when anything happens.
That wasn't my point.
Perhaps I'm using the wrong terminology.
That could be why this concept so difficult for you to understand ?
Let's say space has mass very little but it has mass.
How much space would it take to make a black hole at the other end of the spectrum.
Time runs at diffrent speed depending on mass?
I'm just thinking I never said this was fact.
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Jul 10 2012, 09:47 AM)
Perhaps I'm using the wrong terminology.
I think that should be blindingly obvious at this point.
I think that should be blindingly obvious at this point.
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Jul 10 2012, 01:47 PM)
Let's say space has mass very little but it has mass.
How much space would it take to make a black hole at the other end of the spectrum.
What do you mean by other end of the spectrum?
How much space would it take to make a black hole at the other end of the spectrum.
What do you mean by other end of the spectrum?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 10 2012, 01:51 PM)
I think that should be blindingly obvious at this point.
Hall of Cranks
Quote:Flyingbuttressman
"I had a personal relationship with Jesus"
"Advanced math isn't my strong point"
Why should anyone take you seriously?
Hall of Cranks
Quote:Flyingbuttressman
"I had a personal relationship with Jesus"
"Advanced math isn't my strong point"
Why should anyone take you seriously?
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Jul 10 2012, 12:25 PM)
Hall of Cranks
Quote:Flyingbuttressman
"I had a personal relationship with Jesus"
"Advanced math isn't my strong point"
Why should anyone take you seriously?
That was a long time ago. Obviously I wouldn't be using the past tense if that were still true. I doubt that you have even the slightest idea what "advanced math" IS, let alone have any math skills whatsoever.
Quote:Flyingbuttressman
"I had a personal relationship with Jesus"
"Advanced math isn't my strong point"
Why should anyone take you seriously?
That was a long time ago. Obviously I wouldn't be using the past tense if that were still true. I doubt that you have even the slightest idea what "advanced math" IS, let alone have any math skills whatsoever.
QUOTE (Ed Wood+Jul 10 2012, 11:07 AM)
What do you mean by other end of the spectrum?
I really doubt that Whitewolf has any idea what he means when he uses words that he doesn't understand.
I really doubt that Whitewolf has any idea what he means when he uses words that he doesn't understand.
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.