I am writing a paper for college and I would like to know what the general consensus on the stoppage of time is. I recall a theory - can't remember whose - that says as the universe expands to its 'limit', time will slow down and eventually come to a stop.
I realize the assumption that the Universe has a limit is kind of a difficult one to make.
My paper is about time stopping, what it will mean for existence, and the plausibility of the theory that says it will. Also, I'd like to know what some of the counter-arguments are.
This is a topic that interests me HUGELY but I don't even know where to begin. I'm some kind of n00b. I understand to a degree what people are 'trying to say' when explaining these complicated subjects, and as long as the mathematics are explained in words as well, I can follow the math too. What I've found in my past reading is someone eventually says, "I've taken you as far as I can with words; here is an equation that explains the rest." Oh...thanks. I heard Green writes very good *** about relativity, but does he write on this particular subject? And if so, what would be a good book of his to check out? Any all-encompassing documents I could check out, or maybe something in a journal?
Also, I realize this is a physics board so I'm sure my topic has sprung up elsewhere, and if that's the case, please don't immediately erase my thread but tell me where I can copy and paste this post beforehand.
And thanks for helping out a newbie...I'm a Journalism major, not physics, but I really want to learn.
If it helps, I will add my paper and that might be a better guide to what sort of information I need to obtain, and what information I might be failing to seek out that would really help me.
Here it is (transcribed from hand-written form):
My topic is time, and I plan to look into the scientific possibility that it could one day stop.
Some questions Wait; I'm interested in this because lately I've been thinking about the lifespan of the earth, of our sun, of our galaxy, of other galaxies, and of the cosmos.
With all the talk around global warming and hearing...Steven Hawking himself says humans are finished if we don't quit screwing around with the planet and if we don't move on to inhabit others after our natural resources are spent. that's how I came to think about the inevitability of our own demise. The optimist in me wanted to look as far into the future as possible, but having heard this theory that time itself is finite, it's hard for me to do that, because
- where is there to go when everything's frozen from the excessive expansion of our Universe?
- What is implied when scientists say "time will stop"?
- Does that mean everything will be one 'chunk' through which nothing can move - like an ice cube?
- Won't time go on 'around' the 'chunk' as it becomes lifeless,
- or is time based only on the gravity inside of our Universe?
Is this all bullshit? What do the nay-sayers say, to support nays (their yeas)?
Well, if you look at the universe from a 4-D perspective, time is a direction rather than... well, time 
. We move about freely in 3 dimensions. However, we are moving steadily forward in a fourth dimension: time. According to the "many - worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics, all our possible futures are layed out in front of us (parallel universes). Our choices determine which path we go down. The movement through these paths is in four - dimensional space.
Saying that time will stop from a 4-D perspective is much different from how you might think of it. Imagine a 2-D world, which extends in the third dimension. In this world, the third dimension is time. Countless numbers of "slices" of 2-D world make up this place. They are stacked, one in front of the other. If you view them consecutively, you see movement. Now, take this into 4 dimensions. 3-D slices of world are stacked together, and viewing them one after another, you will see movement. Time stopping would be the stack coming to and end. No more slices.
There are a number of ways in which the universe can end:
1. Closed universe: Everything collapses in on itself
2. Flat universe: The universe expands forever, albeit getting slower and slower
3. Open universe: The universe expands forever.
If our universe is closed, then the space it occupies in the fourth dimension (time) is finite. We will arrive at an end. But it is meaningless to say that "time will stop" in a 4-D perspective. Time is our travel through the fourth dimension. It's like a film reel - if you examine an individual frame, there will be no movement. But there are many more frames to see.
I hope that I've helped!
Edit: In case you were talking about time stopping at the speed of light, Dawn explained that pretty well. I thought you were talking about time stopping at the end of the universe. Maybe I'm just thick .
- Gehn
. We move about freely in 3 dimensions. However, we are moving steadily forward in a fourth dimension: time. According to the "many - worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics, all our possible futures are layed out in front of us (parallel universes). Our choices determine which path we go down. The movement through these paths is in four - dimensional space.Saying that time will stop from a 4-D perspective is much different from how you might think of it. Imagine a 2-D world, which extends in the third dimension. In this world, the third dimension is time. Countless numbers of "slices" of 2-D world make up this place. They are stacked, one in front of the other. If you view them consecutively, you see movement. Now, take this into 4 dimensions. 3-D slices of world are stacked together, and viewing them one after another, you will see movement. Time stopping would be the stack coming to and end. No more slices.
There are a number of ways in which the universe can end:
1. Closed universe: Everything collapses in on itself
2. Flat universe: The universe expands forever, albeit getting slower and slower
3. Open universe: The universe expands forever.
If our universe is closed, then the space it occupies in the fourth dimension (time) is finite. We will arrive at an end. But it is meaningless to say that "time will stop" in a 4-D perspective. Time is our travel through the fourth dimension. It's like a film reel - if you examine an individual frame, there will be no movement. But there are many more frames to see.
I hope that I've helped!
Edit: In case you were talking about time stopping at the speed of light, Dawn explained that pretty well. I thought you were talking about time stopping at the end of the universe. Maybe I'm just thick
.- Gehn
PinkFloyd,
Theoretically at the speed of light © time stops based on time dilation which could find resource's on the web to support the model of special relativity [SR] and time dilation. If your aim is in a novel please understand that there is no source of energy in the universe we know that could propel mass to this speed.
There is no evidence that there will be a Big Crunch you can also research this using the key word, Doppler Effect, and the universe expansion.
This might be another approach to your question you would have access to data that has been tested (SR) in comparison to the stopping of the universe (4 percent that we know of) this would only be speculative at best.
Just for your consideration in your research, hope this might be an alternative view.
dawn
Theoretically at the speed of light © time stops based on time dilation which could find resource's on the web to support the model of special relativity [SR] and time dilation. If your aim is in a novel please understand that there is no source of energy in the universe we know that could propel mass to this speed.
There is no evidence that there will be a Big Crunch you can also research this using the key word, Doppler Effect, and the universe expansion.
This might be another approach to your question you would have access to data that has been tested (SR) in comparison to the stopping of the universe (4 percent that we know of) this would only be speculative at best.
Just for your consideration in your research, hope this might be an alternative view.
dawn
In relationship to the new theory, that because it was said that seven million years ago, was the turning point in universal expansion, to where the universe should start to begin to cool down, then in this respect, time should start to go to that point of slowing down.
Mass density in realms of space, causes time outflow variations, having to do with cold mass profiles.
So if the correct age of the universe is anywhere from fourteen billion to seventeen billion years of age, then rapid contraction, should star to occur now.
This has some veracity as a claim but would be manifested probably in regional clusters, if say the true overall age of the universe, was in the trillions of years of age.
A cool-down, would cause contractual episodes, were the mass of matter time and space, would diminish in size, so therefore its mass gravity would proportionality increase.This at first might cause very odd animal behaviors, such as early pack scenarios of hunting, which was in the recent Alaska attack, by a pack of wolves, on a group of three ladies, in this past fall.The attack came very suddenly, where there was probably plenty of wild game and other food sources nearby.
Also the attack of a Siberian Tiger at a zoo, while late comers that day,. seemed to have taunted the animal.Usually Siberian Tigers are docile in captivity, however if there is a new ice age cold scenario, then a set of hidden controls might well be enacted, if this section of space is headed towards the big crunch?
Time are realized as distance viewing mass objects, has to do with photonic records, as light is a key-way into time.
If mass however, is housed within a region of space, or this end of the universe is currently undergoing a mass crunch, then extreme cold, would be the new as of now scenarios.
Another marker, would be episodic occurrences with our s central sun itself, which as of late, there has been plenty of.
Its very important for the government to come out at this point and admit, "Well by our secret connections we have been told that the age of the universe is more than seventeen billions of years of age. or to come out and say, "No' from what we can tell, its about seventeen to eighteen billions of years of age"!
If the age of the universe is short, and this would be registered as the big crunch, then we are really in trouble.
Mass density in realms of space, causes time outflow variations, having to do with cold mass profiles.
So if the correct age of the universe is anywhere from fourteen billion to seventeen billion years of age, then rapid contraction, should star to occur now.
This has some veracity as a claim but would be manifested probably in regional clusters, if say the true overall age of the universe, was in the trillions of years of age.
A cool-down, would cause contractual episodes, were the mass of matter time and space, would diminish in size, so therefore its mass gravity would proportionality increase.This at first might cause very odd animal behaviors, such as early pack scenarios of hunting, which was in the recent Alaska attack, by a pack of wolves, on a group of three ladies, in this past fall.The attack came very suddenly, where there was probably plenty of wild game and other food sources nearby.
Also the attack of a Siberian Tiger at a zoo, while late comers that day,. seemed to have taunted the animal.Usually Siberian Tigers are docile in captivity, however if there is a new ice age cold scenario, then a set of hidden controls might well be enacted, if this section of space is headed towards the big crunch?
Time are realized as distance viewing mass objects, has to do with photonic records, as light is a key-way into time.
If mass however, is housed within a region of space, or this end of the universe is currently undergoing a mass crunch, then extreme cold, would be the new as of now scenarios.
Another marker, would be episodic occurrences with our s central sun itself, which as of late, there has been plenty of.
Its very important for the government to come out at this point and admit, "Well by our secret connections we have been told that the age of the universe is more than seventeen billions of years of age. or to come out and say, "No' from what we can tell, its about seventeen to eighteen billions of years of age"!
If the age of the universe is short, and this would be registered as the big crunch, then we are really in trouble.
I am not sure if English isn't your first language and I suck at interpreting it, or if you have entirely missed what I am going for.
I don't want to propel mass beyond the speed of light, nor do I have any business discussing that in my paper. Although I suppose I'd need to mention it at some point, so I do appreciate your trying to help.
Also, I heard that the "big crunch" was a theory that has more-or-less been dropped in the physics community now. Is this wrong? I used to like the notion of a big crunch because it fell in line with my own interpretation of the universe acting as a sort of "cosmic heartbeat" - first exploding, then imploding in a repetitive cycle, but once I heard it was untrue, I kind of said, "Oh...." and returned to deep thought on what is to come next.
And your final 'paragraph' is difficult for me to understand as well. Are you saying I should instead change the topic of my paper to the big crunch (which, once again, I don't think is plausible anymore, unless I'm totally wrong about that)? Also, what do you mean when you say "4% that we know of"? 4% of the known universe is frozen in time?
I'm really sorry for being unable to understand you. Perhaps you could soften it up for someone who doesn't know what the hell you're talking about. I see that you have 100% feedback, which tells me the problem can't be you - and must be my own shortcomings. >.<
I don't want to propel mass beyond the speed of light, nor do I have any business discussing that in my paper. Although I suppose I'd need to mention it at some point, so I do appreciate your trying to help.
Also, I heard that the "big crunch" was a theory that has more-or-less been dropped in the physics community now. Is this wrong? I used to like the notion of a big crunch because it fell in line with my own interpretation of the universe acting as a sort of "cosmic heartbeat" - first exploding, then imploding in a repetitive cycle, but once I heard it was untrue, I kind of said, "Oh...." and returned to deep thought on what is to come next.
And your final 'paragraph' is difficult for me to understand as well. Are you saying I should instead change the topic of my paper to the big crunch (which, once again, I don't think is plausible anymore, unless I'm totally wrong about that)? Also, what do you mean when you say "4% that we know of"? 4% of the known universe is frozen in time?
I'm really sorry for being unable to understand you. Perhaps you could soften it up for someone who doesn't know what the hell you're talking about. I see that you have 100% feedback, which tells me the problem can't be you - and must be my own shortcomings. >.<
QUOTE (philip347+Jan 24 2008, 08:24 PM)
In relationship to the new theory, that because it was said that seven million years ago, was the turning point in universal expansion, to where the universe should start to begin to cool down, then in this respect, time should start to go to that point of slowing down.
Mass density in realms of space, causes time outflow variations, having to do with cold mass profiles.
So if the correct age of the universe is anywhere from fourteen billion to seventeen billion years of age, then rapid contraction, should star to occur now.
This has some veracity as a claim but would be manifested probably in regional clusters, if say the true overall age of the universe, was in the trillions of years of age.
A cool-down, would cause contractual episodes, were the mass of matter time and space, would diminish in size, so therefore its mass gravity would proportionality increase.This at first might cause very odd animal behaviors, such as early pack scenarios of hunting, which was in the recent Alaska attack, by a pack of wolves, on a group of three ladies, in this past fall.The attack came very suddenly, where there was probably plenty of wild game and other food sources nearby.
Also the attack of a Siberian Tiger at a zoo, while late comers that day,. seemed to have taunted the animal.Usually Siberian Tigers are docile in captivity, however if there is a new ice age cold scenario, then a set of hidden controls might well be enacted, if this section of space is headed towards the big crunch?
Time are realized as distance viewing mass objects, has to do with photonic records, as light is a key-way into time.
If mass however, is housed within a region of space, or this end of the universe is currently undergoing a mass crunch, then extreme cold, would be the new as of now scenarios.
Another marker, would be episodic occurrences with our s central sun itself, which as of late, there has been plenty of.
Its very important for the government to come out at this point and admit, "Well by our secret connections we have been told that the age of the universe is more than seventeen billions of years of age. or to come out and say, "No' from what we can tell, its about seventeen to eighteen billions of years of age"!
If the age of the universe is short, and this would be registered as the big crunch, then we are really in trouble.
Uh...I thought this was supposed to be a board where intelligent people post?
I understand it might be boring to some of you oldbies to answer the same old n00b-posts over and over again, but I would really appreciate some advice. I never even knew a place like this existed but I've already been posting in other places too and I'm so glad I found this board. It rocks...but where are all the rockers at? I see really intelligent posts all over the place, but nothing in mine so far...
Mass density in realms of space, causes time outflow variations, having to do with cold mass profiles.
So if the correct age of the universe is anywhere from fourteen billion to seventeen billion years of age, then rapid contraction, should star to occur now.
This has some veracity as a claim but would be manifested probably in regional clusters, if say the true overall age of the universe, was in the trillions of years of age.
A cool-down, would cause contractual episodes, were the mass of matter time and space, would diminish in size, so therefore its mass gravity would proportionality increase.This at first might cause very odd animal behaviors, such as early pack scenarios of hunting, which was in the recent Alaska attack, by a pack of wolves, on a group of three ladies, in this past fall.The attack came very suddenly, where there was probably plenty of wild game and other food sources nearby.
Also the attack of a Siberian Tiger at a zoo, while late comers that day,. seemed to have taunted the animal.Usually Siberian Tigers are docile in captivity, however if there is a new ice age cold scenario, then a set of hidden controls might well be enacted, if this section of space is headed towards the big crunch?
Time are realized as distance viewing mass objects, has to do with photonic records, as light is a key-way into time.
If mass however, is housed within a region of space, or this end of the universe is currently undergoing a mass crunch, then extreme cold, would be the new as of now scenarios.
Another marker, would be episodic occurrences with our s central sun itself, which as of late, there has been plenty of.
Its very important for the government to come out at this point and admit, "Well by our secret connections we have been told that the age of the universe is more than seventeen billions of years of age. or to come out and say, "No' from what we can tell, its about seventeen to eighteen billions of years of age"!
If the age of the universe is short, and this would be registered as the big crunch, then we are really in trouble.
Uh...I thought this was supposed to be a board where intelligent people post?
I understand it might be boring to some of you oldbies to answer the same old n00b-posts over and over again, but I would really appreciate some advice. I never even knew a place like this existed but I've already been posting in other places too and I'm so glad I found this board. It rocks...but where are all the rockers at? I see really intelligent posts all over the place, but nothing in mine so far...
Universe was never created nor can it be destroyed. Whats the age of such reality?
Ha ha ha, maybe I'm an alien?
Translated real simple.>Look at the universe as first being like a the same density as water in a bowl.
Now because of regional happenings in probability in one area or more in the universe, look at that same glass of water again and its now maple syrup, only getting very much colder.
Translated real simple.>Look at the universe as first being like a the same density as water in a bowl.
Now because of regional happenings in probability in one area or more in the universe, look at that same glass of water again and its now maple syrup, only getting very much colder.
QUOTE
I would like to know what the general consensus on the stoppage of time is.
PinkFloyd, all,
I will take the blame on this, please understand I am not an English Major.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I would like to know what the general consensus on the stoppage of time is. |
PinkFloyd, all,
I will take the blame on this, please understand I am not an English Major.
. I'm a Journalism major was quoted by you.
I was responding to the question above by you. The paper did not seem to be related to physics and I tried to give you another perspective of the stoppage of time I will not interrupt your post, please excuse my invasion.
When it comes to this physicist (S. Hawking)
He has forgotten more than I will ever learn when it comes to cosmology.
dawn
You could read a book that should be very basic in thought by, P.Yourgrau ISBN - 0-465-09293-4 (hc.) A World Without Time if that is not correct sir, you can find the ISBN by the title.
I was responding to the question above by you. The paper did not seem to be related to physics and I tried to give you another perspective of the stoppage of time I will not interrupt your post, please excuse my invasion.
When it comes to this physicist (S. Hawking)
QUOTE
Is this all bullshit? What do the nay-sayers say, to support nays (their yeas)?
I will never make any derogatory comments, especially about him. He has forgotten more than I will ever learn when it comes to cosmology.
dawn
You could read a book that should be very basic in thought by, P.Yourgrau ISBN - 0-465-09293-4 (hc.) A World Without Time if that is not correct sir, you can find the ISBN by the title.
Am I supposed to look at the Universe in a 4D perspective?
You know what I'm beginning to realize? Quantum physics is too reliant on "if this model of the universe is the correct one," and doesn't help me much. Pretty much I'm going to get to a point where, like blindly accepting a religion, I'll have to blindly accept my model of the universe before I can move on to explain scientists' views on whether or not time will stop at the end of the universe?
Does that mean that some people only believe what some scientists write, and dismiss other scientific viewpoints as rubbish? I know some scientists do this among themselves but now - in my mind - it's becoming something of a clusterfuck. You guys know what that is, right? A clusterfuck means you muck up what begins as a legitimate conversation until no right answer can be resolved, and that's what you're starting to do to mine.
Can someone please just refer me to a book, or the name of a scientist who studies this particular area so I can move on and write this paper?
You know what I'm beginning to realize? Quantum physics is too reliant on "if this model of the universe is the correct one," and doesn't help me much. Pretty much I'm going to get to a point where, like blindly accepting a religion, I'll have to blindly accept my model of the universe before I can move on to explain scientists' views on whether or not time will stop at the end of the universe?
Does that mean that some people only believe what some scientists write, and dismiss other scientific viewpoints as rubbish? I know some scientists do this among themselves but now - in my mind - it's becoming something of a clusterfuck. You guys know what that is, right? A clusterfuck means you muck up what begins as a legitimate conversation until no right answer can be resolved, and that's what you're starting to do to mine.
Can someone please just refer me to a book, or the name of a scientist who studies this particular area so I can move on and write this paper?
QUOTE (PinkFloyd+Jan 24 2008, 12:34 PM)
Uh...I thought this was supposed to be a board where intelligent people post?
<....> I see really intelligent posts all over the place, but nothing in mine so far...
Have patience. There ARE a FEW good posters out there (Dawn is one, I think she just mis read your post? lack of time can do that to a girl...) sometimes it just takes time to catch their attention. Unfortunately this place has been over run with NON science lately, and the good ones are snoozing. Take the rest of 'em with a grain of salt.........
Keep seeking and asking questions to keep this thread from getting lost in the clutter. I am hoping the intelligent posters find this thread too! (but I am not one of them... )
<....> I see really intelligent posts all over the place, but nothing in mine so far...
Have patience. There ARE a FEW good posters out there (Dawn is one, I think she just mis read your post? lack of time can do that to a girl...) sometimes it just takes time to catch their attention. Unfortunately this place has been over run with NON science lately, and the good ones are snoozing. Take the rest of 'em with a grain of salt.........
Keep seeking and asking questions to keep this thread from getting lost in the clutter. I am hoping the intelligent posters find this thread too! (but I am not one of them...
)
QUOTE ("THEY"+Jan 24 2008, 09:08 PM)
Have patience. There ARE a FEW good posters out there (Dawn is one, I think she just mis read your post? lack of time can do that to a girl...) sometimes it just takes time to catch their attention. Unfortunately this place has been over run with NON science lately, and the good ones are snoozing. Take the rest of 'em with a grain of salt.........
Keep seeking and asking questions to keep this thread from getting lost in the clutter. I am hoping the intelligent posters find this thread too! (but I am not one of them... )
Awwww, so I'm a stupid poster ?
- Gehn
Keep seeking and asking questions to keep this thread from getting lost in the clutter. I am hoping the intelligent posters find this thread too! (but I am not one of them...
) Awwww, so I'm a stupid poster
?- Gehn
QUOTE (Gehn+Jan 24 2008, 01:22 PM)
Awwww, so I'm a stupid poster ?
- Gehn
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that........
Actually, I intended to type that your post was pretty good IMHO, but I can see that I neglected to type that in my haste.
I don't know what it is about us females not having enough time to post!
?- Gehn
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that........
Actually, I intended to type that your post was pretty good IMHO, but I can see that I neglected to type that in my haste.
I don't know what it is about us females not having enough time to post!
QUOTE ("THEY"+Jan 24 2008, 09:28 PM)
I don't know what it is about us females not having enough time to post!
It's that you're so busy trying to compensate for your inferiority to men, I guess.
Okay so I looked around the innernets and discovered that it was a group of European scientists: Professor José Senovilla, Marc Mars and Raül Vera of the University of the Basque Country, Bilbao, and Univerisity of Salamanca, Spain.
They set their theory in motion (the one about time stopping) to explain the "phenomenon" of stars moving away from us faster at the outer edges of the galaxy than those closer to us. Uhm...I'm going to repeat something I saw on that show called The Universe for you guys.
This is a line representing a plane in our universe - not the whole thing, just one plane within it. Each circle on the line represents a star. The wacky circle in the middle is the alleged center of the plane. Imagine the line is a piece of elastic string, which does a rough, but fair job of illustrating gravitational forces for these purposes.
o-----o-----o-----O-----o-----o-----o
Stretch this line out, and what happens?
o--------o-------o------O------o-------o--------o
stretch it some more? sure...
o--------------o-----------o--------O--------o-----------o--------------o
The stars at the edges of the universe move outward from the center faster because they've got a greater length of line to work with, therefore the 'tension' won't be as noticeable as for the stars closer to the center, where they have shorter line to play with.
But! Where does time stopping come into play? My theory is that the universe will have stretched so thin that the background radiation will completely dissipate and the universe will eventually reach absolute zero. Because elastic stretches out and sometimes it doesn't snap back like a rubber band, but stays stretched out and permanently ruined. The problem is that our universe isn't made out of elastic and I need a seriously educated source besides all our speculation.
This is a research paper - it can't be all rhetoric. Ya dig?
It's that you're so busy trying to compensate for your inferiority to men, I guess.
Okay so I looked around the innernets and discovered that it was a group of European scientists: Professor José Senovilla, Marc Mars and Raül Vera of the University of the Basque Country, Bilbao, and Univerisity of Salamanca, Spain.
They set their theory in motion (the one about time stopping) to explain the "phenomenon" of stars moving away from us faster at the outer edges of the galaxy than those closer to us. Uhm...I'm going to repeat something I saw on that show called The Universe for you guys.
This is a line representing a plane in our universe - not the whole thing, just one plane within it. Each circle on the line represents a star. The wacky circle in the middle is the alleged center of the plane. Imagine the line is a piece of elastic string, which does a rough, but fair job of illustrating gravitational forces for these purposes.
o-----o-----o-----O-----o-----o-----o
Stretch this line out, and what happens?
o--------o-------o------O------o-------o--------o
stretch it some more? sure...
o--------------o-----------o--------O--------o-----------o--------------o
The stars at the edges of the universe move outward from the center faster because they've got a greater length of line to work with, therefore the 'tension' won't be as noticeable as for the stars closer to the center, where they have shorter line to play with.
But! Where does time stopping come into play? My theory is that the universe will have stretched so thin that the background radiation will completely dissipate and the universe will eventually reach absolute zero. Because elastic stretches out and sometimes it doesn't snap back like a rubber band, but stays stretched out and permanently ruined. The problem is that our universe isn't made out of elastic and I need a seriously educated source besides all our speculation.
This is a research paper - it can't be all rhetoric. Ya dig?
Its mechanics and even Liza Randal wont commit this far in her book Warped Passages.
There is a definite problem of answering any of your questions, as science, as we know it, is in an argument over the age of the universe.
There are biblical intonations of it being a mere fourteen billion years old.Others, the post ghost creational explosive veils argumentation, which occurred at the San Diego based Carnegie Observatories, saying that the true age, of the universe, due to leftover constituents in mass spectrography, saying that the age of the universe is seventeen billions of years of age, is another.
There is also the statement in the book, The Pleiadean Mission which says that the overall age of the universe, is in the sixty four trillions of years of age.
If this is so, then creation as first mentioned with the Carnegie Observatory Wendy Friedman claim, that the proper age of the universe is seventeen billions of years of age, does not have veracity.
In the series Universe, which was just posted on Discovery some three nights ago, they are saying that the turning point to the great cool down of what we know as the universe, started seven millions of years ago.
This is very important data, as this information would impinge on the proper regional age of our area of the universe as being important as if the turning point to cool down was seven millions old years ago, then we should be starting to feel these effects, if the true age is only in the billions of years of age.
If you cant understand this when its posted as being this simple, then either your a disruptive troll, or cant understand the most rudimentary of scientific logics.
Either take what we give you here with respect, or it would be advisable to go somewhere else.
There is a definite problem of answering any of your questions, as science, as we know it, is in an argument over the age of the universe.
There are biblical intonations of it being a mere fourteen billion years old.Others, the post ghost creational explosive veils argumentation, which occurred at the San Diego based Carnegie Observatories, saying that the true age, of the universe, due to leftover constituents in mass spectrography, saying that the age of the universe is seventeen billions of years of age, is another.
There is also the statement in the book, The Pleiadean Mission which says that the overall age of the universe, is in the sixty four trillions of years of age.
If this is so, then creation as first mentioned with the Carnegie Observatory Wendy Friedman claim, that the proper age of the universe is seventeen billions of years of age, does not have veracity.
In the series Universe, which was just posted on Discovery some three nights ago, they are saying that the turning point to the great cool down of what we know as the universe, started seven millions of years ago.
This is very important data, as this information would impinge on the proper regional age of our area of the universe as being important as if the turning point to cool down was seven millions old years ago, then we should be starting to feel these effects, if the true age is only in the billions of years of age.
If you cant understand this when its posted as being this simple, then either your a disruptive troll, or cant understand the most rudimentary of scientific logics.
Either take what we give you here with respect, or it would be advisable to go somewhere else.
QUOTE (PinkFloyd+Jan 25 2008, 09:34 AM)
Uh...I thought this was supposed to be a board where intelligent people post?
Ah, the naivety of youth.
Sadly, philip235 is fairly typical of the many loonies, idiots, cranks, phonies, posers and trolls that this forum seems to have a sick fascination among.
Ah, the naivety of youth.Sadly, philip235 is fairly typical of the many loonies, idiots, cranks, phonies, posers and trolls that this forum seems to have a sick fascination among.
That's pretty good info philip347, but I'm not talking about the beginning of the universe. I'm talking about the end and I don't care about the age. Maybe you should stop calling me a disruptive troll and move over to the Big Bang thread because they are discussing concepts relevant to what you're talking about.
And N O M, you seem to know the score. Do you have anything to offer or did you just stop in to insult philip?
Will anybody with something worthwhile to say actually post in my topic? This seems like a busy forum, with like 300 users on all at once, but no one is directly addressing my question? They're not even talking about what I'm talking about. Can you help me?
And N O M, you seem to know the score. Do you have anything to offer or did you just stop in to insult philip?
Will anybody with something worthwhile to say actually post in my topic? This seems like a busy forum, with like 300 users on all at once, but no one is directly addressing my question? They're not even talking about what I'm talking about. Can you help me?
Isn't "The Big Rip" a pretty good theory on the end of time?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/big_rip_030306.html
It is my favorite theory at least.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/big_rip_030306.html
It is my favorite theory at least.
QUOTE
PinkFloyd Posted: Today at 7:31 AM Where does time stopping come into play?
the idea is that there is an alternative explanation to data that suggests that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. to make the alternative idea workIf time is indeed slowing down, so that according to this new suggestion our solitary time dimension is slowly turning into a new space dimension, then the far-distant, ancient stars seen by cosmologists would therefore, from our perspective, look as though they were accelerating.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtm.../scitime118.xml
i have not seen the paper published yet.....
All I wanted to say kjw, is that if there was going to be a cool-down of genral space, then this might or might not be regional to the cluster of galixies that we are in?
Thank you for your curt kind reply.
Thank you for your curt kind reply.
I was under the impression that all of space was a certain temperature (I forget what, but we studied it in high school and I remember it was measured in degrees kelvin). Beyond our general galaxy cluster, there is really no way of telling what region of space we are currently in, so there's no way to tell whether all of space is this one constant temperature or if it fluctuates throughout.
Also, there is one model of our universe that claims we are in the cool-down period now and have been for the last 7 million years. I also have found out this is related to my topic, and soon this duo of theories will be testable with the operation of the LHC in Geneva.
I don't know how to feel about this thing...but that's a whole other story. Some people tell me "lol lern 2 physiks" and I read that some physicists are concerned about the safety of the thing, so I don't really know what to believe. I guess it won't matter if we all become a singularity - hey, at least we'll all exist as one, right?
Also, there is one model of our universe that claims we are in the cool-down period now and have been for the last 7 million years. I also have found out this is related to my topic, and soon this duo of theories will be testable with the operation of the LHC in Geneva.
I don't know how to feel about this thing...but that's a whole other story. Some people tell me "lol lern 2 physiks" and I read that some physicists are concerned about the safety of the thing, so I don't really know what to believe. I guess it won't matter if we all become a singularity - hey, at least we'll all exist as one, right?
Hans Alfven said:
"There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time,"
Since religion intrinsically rejects empirical methods, there should never be any attempt to reconcile scientific theories with religion he said. An infinitely old universe, always evolving, may not, he admited, be compatible with the Book of Genesis.
Astrophysicists have tried too hard to extrapolate the origin of the universe from mathematical theories developed on the blackboard. The appeal of the Big Bang, said Alfvén, has been more ideological than scientific. When men think about the universe, there is always a conflict between the mythical approach and the empirical scientific approach. In myth, one tries to deduce how the gods must have created the world - what perfect principles must have been used."
"There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time,"
Since religion intrinsically rejects empirical methods, there should never be any attempt to reconcile scientific theories with religion he said. An infinitely old universe, always evolving, may not, he admited, be compatible with the Book of Genesis.
Astrophysicists have tried too hard to extrapolate the origin of the universe from mathematical theories developed on the blackboard. The appeal of the Big Bang, said Alfvén, has been more ideological than scientific. When men think about the universe, there is always a conflict between the mythical approach and the empirical scientific approach. In myth, one tries to deduce how the gods must have created the world - what perfect principles must have been used."
time can not stop
because time never started
because time never started
PinkFloyd,
Time as we experience it is electron based. The speed of the electron is affected by mass and speed of mass. Until we know what causes the electron to move we will not have a clue too its eventual stopping or not. If electron movement is energy and electron movement describes time than time is energy. Will the energy ever be used up in the universe? Depending on whether energy is part of mass or separate from mass would go a long way towards answering your question. All mass has entropy but the electrons keep moving (slower with less potential). Any theory that does not address the cause of electron movement is just conjecture for the purpose of defining the end of time.
Time as we experience it is electron based. The speed of the electron is affected by mass and speed of mass. Until we know what causes the electron to move we will not have a clue too its eventual stopping or not. If electron movement is energy and electron movement describes time than time is energy. Will the energy ever be used up in the universe? Depending on whether energy is part of mass or separate from mass would go a long way towards answering your question. All mass has entropy but the electrons keep moving (slower with less potential). Any theory that does not address the cause of electron movement is just conjecture for the purpose of defining the end of time.
Pretty cool question.
If time lives with mass it won't stop just because entropy.
If time is expressed through mass but have a independent existence (third state?:)
then i will do as it pleases.
If time is 'events' and you are thinking of that end as the end of all events:)
Naaaeh :)
If time lives with mass it won't stop just because entropy.
If time is expressed through mass but have a independent existence (third state?:)
then i will do as it pleases.
If time is 'events' and you are thinking of that end as the end of all events:)
Naaaeh :)
QUOTE (PinkFloyd+Jan 24 2008, 06:59 PM)
I am writing a paper for college and I would like to know what the general consensus on the stoppage of time is. I recall a theory - can't remember whose - that says as the universe expands to its 'limit', time will slow down and eventually come to a stop.
I realize the assumption that the Universe has a limit is kind of a difficult one to make.
My paper is about time stopping, what it will mean for existence, and the plausibility of the theory that says it will. Also, I'd like to know what some of the counter-arguments are.
This is a topic that interests me HUGELY but I don't even know where to begin. I'm some kind of n00b. I understand to a degree what people are 'trying to say' when explaining these complicated subjects, and as long as the mathematics are explained in words as well, I can follow the math too. What I've found in my past reading is someone eventually says, "I've taken you as far as I can with words; here is an equation that explains the rest." Oh...thanks. I heard Green writes very good *** about relativity, but does he write on this particular subject? And if so, what would be a good book of his to check out? Any all-encompassing documents I could check out, or maybe something in a journal?
My topic is time, and I plan to look into the scientific possibility that it could one day stop.
Some questions Wait; I'm interested in this because lately I've been thinking about the lifespan of the earth, of our sun, of our galaxy, of other galaxies, and of the cosmos.
With all the talk around global warming and hearing...Steven Hawking himself says humans are finished if we don't quit screwing around with the planet and if we don't move on to inhabit others after our natural resources are spent. that's how I came to think about the inevitability of our own demise. The optimist in me wanted to look as far into the future as possible, but having heard this theory that time itself is finite, it's hard for me to do that, because
- where is there to go when everything's frozen from the excessive expansion of our Universe?
- What is implied when scientists say "time will stop"?
- Does that mean everything will be one 'chunk' through which nothing can move - like an ice cube?
- Won't time go on 'around' the 'chunk' as it becomes lifeless,
- or is time based only on the gravity inside of our Universe?
Is this all bullshit? What do the nay-sayers say, to support nays (their yeas)?
The flat earth, the egocentric universe, absolute time, deterministic physics, all these theories within a span of a few thousand years.
Do you really think a theory that makes predictions a billion or even a million years in advance will be correct? Is our knowledge base that complete?
Remember, this type of long range theory makes huge assumptions; that things will remain essentially constant, and no new phenomena will occur.
Human thinking cannot predict the weather beyond a few weeks!
Doesn't it look more like pure speculation?
Universal expansion doesn't have to be permanent, it could be cyclical, or temporary.
What is this preoccupation with looking for gloom and doom around every corner, is science insecure?
I realize the assumption that the Universe has a limit is kind of a difficult one to make.
My paper is about time stopping, what it will mean for existence, and the plausibility of the theory that says it will. Also, I'd like to know what some of the counter-arguments are.
This is a topic that interests me HUGELY but I don't even know where to begin. I'm some kind of n00b. I understand to a degree what people are 'trying to say' when explaining these complicated subjects, and as long as the mathematics are explained in words as well, I can follow the math too. What I've found in my past reading is someone eventually says, "I've taken you as far as I can with words; here is an equation that explains the rest." Oh...thanks. I heard Green writes very good *** about relativity, but does he write on this particular subject? And if so, what would be a good book of his to check out? Any all-encompassing documents I could check out, or maybe something in a journal?
My topic is time, and I plan to look into the scientific possibility that it could one day stop.
Some questions Wait; I'm interested in this because lately I've been thinking about the lifespan of the earth, of our sun, of our galaxy, of other galaxies, and of the cosmos.
With all the talk around global warming and hearing...Steven Hawking himself says humans are finished if we don't quit screwing around with the planet and if we don't move on to inhabit others after our natural resources are spent. that's how I came to think about the inevitability of our own demise. The optimist in me wanted to look as far into the future as possible, but having heard this theory that time itself is finite, it's hard for me to do that, because
- where is there to go when everything's frozen from the excessive expansion of our Universe?
- What is implied when scientists say "time will stop"?
- Does that mean everything will be one 'chunk' through which nothing can move - like an ice cube?
- Won't time go on 'around' the 'chunk' as it becomes lifeless,
- or is time based only on the gravity inside of our Universe?
Is this all bullshit? What do the nay-sayers say, to support nays (their yeas)?
The flat earth, the egocentric universe, absolute time, deterministic physics, all these theories within a span of a few thousand years.
Do you really think a theory that makes predictions a billion or even a million years in advance will be correct? Is our knowledge base that complete?
Remember, this type of long range theory makes huge assumptions; that things will remain essentially constant, and no new phenomena will occur.
Human thinking cannot predict the weather beyond a few weeks!
Doesn't it look more like pure speculation?
Universal expansion doesn't have to be permanent, it could be cyclical, or temporary.
What is this preoccupation with looking for gloom and doom around every corner, is science insecure?
PinkFloyd,
Eternity:...Def. 2...infinite time; time without beginning or END.
Has no correlation with expanding universe models.
No one has the answer to the meaning of time.
Write your own thing. There is no high authority to cite that has the ultimate answer.
Eternity:...Def. 2...infinite time; time without beginning or END.
Has no correlation with expanding universe models.
No one has the answer to the meaning of time.
Write your own thing. There is no high authority to cite that has the ultimate answer.
right question is: will motion stop ?
no it will not stop, universe is a system in a permanent dynamic equilibrium
no it will not stop, universe is a system in a permanent dynamic equilibrium
QUOTE (amrit+Mar 13 2008, 01:58 PM)
right question is: will motion stop ?
no it will not stop, universe is a system in a permanent dynamic equilibrium
I disagree. The right question is:
Will amrit stop?
no it will not stop, universe is a system in a permanent dynamic equilibrium
I disagree. The right question is:
Will amrit stop?
QUOTE (amrit+Mar 13 2008, 01:58 PM)
right question is: will motion stop ?
Amrit ...... please stop your motion of the bovine variety.
Amrit ...... please stop your motion of the bovine variety.
Simple explanation: Time won't stop.
Time is a dimension. Just like length, width, and depth. They are man-made concepts.
A common theory for the end of the universe will be an entropic demise called Heat Death. Things will be spread out so far that no particle will interact with any other particle, and after that, the energy causing matter to exist will transfer through heat loss and other entropy back into the lowest-energy EM wave.
The name "heat death" is misleading. It's not a death of too much heat, as might be implied--it's a death of heat; in other words, heat will be gone.
Time is a dimension. Just like length, width, and depth. They are man-made concepts.
- You cannot "stop" or "alter" a distance. You cannot "stop" or "alter" time.
- You cannot "travel through" a distance. You cannot "travel through" time.
- You CAN "travel for" a distance. You CAN "travel for" a time.
A common theory for the end of the universe will be an entropic demise called Heat Death. Things will be spread out so far that no particle will interact with any other particle, and after that, the energy causing matter to exist will transfer through heat loss and other entropy back into the lowest-energy EM wave.
The name "heat death" is misleading. It's not a death of too much heat, as might be implied--it's a death of heat; in other words, heat will be gone.
yes we exist universe exist into consciousness
motion of an object into consciousness we can describe with three spatial and one time coordinate where time coordinate means duration and numerical order of an event into consciousness that itself is a-temporal
duration and numerical order we measure with clock
motion of an object into consciousness we can describe with three spatial and one time coordinate where time coordinate means duration and numerical order of an event into consciousness that itself is a-temporal
duration and numerical order we measure with clock
Length, width, and depth.... are dimensions just like the TIME dimension ...
The Universe's Axis don't move, it's the Object/Human that move in the Dimensions.
The "MOVE" is the quantity called P ... generalized momentum, it's component control the "NOT-VISIABLE POSITION" in the so call TIME direction, and visible change of "VISABLE POSITION".
The size of P is related to each object's "TIME-SIZE"
The P component in the "NOT-VISIABLE" direction is normally expressed as REST-MASS.
--------------------------------------------------
Result:
1) Any object that have ONLY the "NOT-VISIABLE" P ... ie rest-mass, no motion, it will experience time flow.
2) Object with P but doesn't have "NOT-VISIABLE" component ... no rest-mass, moving at the speed of light.
3) Object's loss of P, shrink it's time/universe.
4) Object, completely loss of it's P, reduced to no time, no length, no energy, non-existence.... the universe becomes infinite.
5) On the other end,, if an Object acquire more energy, the Universe get relatively closer ....
6) You can "travel" in the time Universe, but your existence is temporal.
7) "Reversal in time/history" is a wrong question !
The Universe's Axis don't move, it's the Object/Human that move in the Dimensions.
The "MOVE" is the quantity called P ... generalized momentum, it's component control the "NOT-VISIABLE POSITION" in the so call TIME direction, and visible change of "VISABLE POSITION".
The size of P is related to each object's "TIME-SIZE"
The P component in the "NOT-VISIABLE" direction is normally expressed as REST-MASS.
--------------------------------------------------
Result:
1) Any object that have ONLY the "NOT-VISIABLE" P ... ie rest-mass, no motion, it will experience time flow.
2) Object with P but doesn't have "NOT-VISIABLE" component ... no rest-mass, moving at the speed of light.
3) Object's loss of P, shrink it's time/universe.
4) Object, completely loss of it's P, reduced to no time, no length, no energy, non-existence.... the universe becomes infinite.
5) On the other end,, if an Object acquire more energy, the Universe get relatively closer ....
6) You can "travel" in the time Universe, but your existence is temporal.
7) "Reversal in time/history" is a wrong question !
QUOTE (JTsang+Mar 16 2008, 09:45 AM)
Length, width, and depth.... are dimensions just like the TIME dimension ...
The Universe's Axis don't move, it's the Object/Human that move in the Dimensions.
The "MOVE" is the quantity called P ... generalized momentum, it's component control the "NOT-VISIABLE POSITION" in the so call TIME direction, and visible change of "VISABLE POSITION".
The size of P is related to each object's "TIME-SIZE"
The P component in the "NOT-VISIABLE" direction is normally expressed as REST-MASS.
--------------------------------------------------
Result:
1) Any object that have ONLY the "NOT-VISIABLE" P ... ie rest-mass, no motion, it will experience time flow.
2) Object with P but doesn't have "NOT-VISIABLE" component ... no rest-mass, moving at the speed of light.
3) Object's loss of P, shrink it's time/universe.
4) Object, completely loss of it's P, reduced to no time, no length, no energy, non-existence.... the universe becomes infinite.
5) On the other end,, if an Object acquire more energy, the Universe get relatively closer ....
6) You can "travel" in the time Universe, but your existence is temporal.
7) "Reversal in time/history" is a wrong question !
watcher - witness - observer is not moving
he is pure presence.....this is what space also is - pure consciousness
The Universe's Axis don't move, it's the Object/Human that move in the Dimensions.
The "MOVE" is the quantity called P ... generalized momentum, it's component control the "NOT-VISIABLE POSITION" in the so call TIME direction, and visible change of "VISABLE POSITION".
The size of P is related to each object's "TIME-SIZE"
The P component in the "NOT-VISIABLE" direction is normally expressed as REST-MASS.
--------------------------------------------------
Result:
1) Any object that have ONLY the "NOT-VISIABLE" P ... ie rest-mass, no motion, it will experience time flow.
2) Object with P but doesn't have "NOT-VISIABLE" component ... no rest-mass, moving at the speed of light.
3) Object's loss of P, shrink it's time/universe.
4) Object, completely loss of it's P, reduced to no time, no length, no energy, non-existence.... the universe becomes infinite.
5) On the other end,, if an Object acquire more energy, the Universe get relatively closer ....
6) You can "travel" in the time Universe, but your existence is temporal.
7) "Reversal in time/history" is a wrong question !
watcher - witness - observer is not moving
he is pure presence.....this is what space also is - pure consciousness
This thread ought to be called "It's about time amrit stopped." 
understanding of time is a bridge betwen science and meditation, see
http://www.wbabin.net/sorli/sorli7.pdf
http://www.wbabin.net/sorli/sorli7.pdf
QUOTE (amrit+)
understanding of time is a bridge betwen science and meditation, see
It could also be said that understanding amrit is a bridge between ignorance and insanity.
It could also be said that understanding amrit is a bridge between ignorance and insanity.
Due to physical limitation:
... number of eyes, position of eyes, and body sensors .. the brain has to do extrapolation to reconstructed the space and time ,.. not likely close to the "reality".
------------------------------------------------
Try
1)Establish a "SIGHT" ... a "MIND EYE", which is capable to "SEE 360 degrees all at once"... this primary ability allow one to examine the 3-d in it omni-direction form.
2)That EYE is ONE and ALL over the "Matter of oneself", ------ NOW, turn it around and look inward.
Quiz:
What is the difference between the inner universe and the outer universe ?
As of "Matter of self", is the collection of outer-universe as valid as the inner-universe ?
Are you just that "EYE" ?
------------------------------------------------
Enjoy mediation.
... number of eyes, position of eyes, and body sensors .. the brain has to do extrapolation to reconstructed the space and time ,.. not likely close to the "reality".
------------------------------------------------
Try
1)Establish a "SIGHT" ... a "MIND EYE", which is capable to "SEE 360 degrees all at once"... this primary ability allow one to examine the 3-d in it omni-direction form.
2)That EYE is ONE and ALL over the "Matter of oneself", ------ NOW, turn it around and look inward.
Quiz:
What is the difference between the inner universe and the outer universe ?
As of "Matter of self", is the collection of outer-universe as valid as the inner-universe ?
Are you just that "EYE" ?
------------------------------------------------
Enjoy mediation.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Mar 17 2008, 05:10 AM)
QUOTE (amrit+)
understanding of time is a bridge betwen science and meditation, see
It could also be said that understanding amrit is a bridge between ignorance and insanity.
yes insanity of western civilization that lives into illusion of time
Buddhist are moch much more peaceful and nature protecting
It could also be said that understanding amrit is a bridge between ignorance and insanity.
yes insanity of western civilization that lives into illusion of time
Buddhist are moch much more peaceful and nature protecting
amrit:
Have you try the Meditation I mentioned ? what did you feel ?
In your conscious, you can conscious the universe move around you, or you in the universe, that's the move I mean.
Watched is the twin of watcher, isn't it ? you are watching yourself out from yourself, aren't you not ?
Either both "can" move, or both "can't" move, right ?
Who is moving ?
You are moving & not moving ...!?
Maybe .... just maybe, how about NOT-MOVING is a subset of MOVING .
----------------------------------------------------------------
By the way :Western civilization is full of violent for sure ... Buddhism is suppose to be peaceful, however it is an expression of practitioner, recent examples in Thailand, and China demonstrate otherwise in selected members ... "THIS IS NOT A PROPAGANDA"
Have you try the Meditation I mentioned ? what did you feel ?
In your conscious, you can conscious the universe move around you, or you in the universe, that's the move I mean.
Watched is the twin of watcher, isn't it ? you are watching yourself out from yourself, aren't you not ?
Either both "can" move, or both "can't" move, right ?
Who is moving ?
You are moving & not moving ...!?
Maybe .... just maybe, how about NOT-MOVING is a subset of MOVING .
----------------------------------------------------------------
By the way :Western civilization is full of violent for sure ... Buddhism is suppose to be peaceful, however it is an expression of practitioner, recent examples in Thailand, and China demonstrate otherwise in selected members ... "THIS IS NOT A PROPAGANDA"
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.