Time is the expansion of space

a reply to: f4andHALFtoads

If we are to have any time fram of any kind at all. We would first have to have a timeline that is a absolute constant.

The finite we know of and have built Our science around was formed after the expansion of the singularity had started.
The singularity was not in any way like the finites we know of today. Because the singularity formed the finites we know of today through a expansion process. Even the black holes did not exist until the singularity had expanded and made room for them to exist.

There are no evidence that Our universe is a copy of a different universe, where black holes in that universe formed Ours. We dont even know if there can exist a black hole without finite particles and matter. Because there are no way to study that.

a reply to: spy66


By the thinking already laid out between us, a contraction event towards a singularity would create a timeline... And so I postulate that within a black hole forming in our universe, there would be a timeline: the compression of matter creating a change in density, as described in the OP

How Big Are Black Holes? Black holes can be big or small. Scientists think the smallest black holes are as small as just one atom. These black holes are very tiny but have the mass of a large mountain. Mass is the amount of matter, or "stuff," in an object.

NASA

If the mass of a mountain can be compressed into the size of an atom. Are we not talking about the creation of a kind of Singularity?

There are many who try to complicate black holes - perhaps correctly. But keep in mind they may be mini universes.

a reply to: f4andHALFtoads

you always were.

a reply to: f4andHALFtoads

Using your current idea that time is produced by expansion of the universe, let's look at a couple of situations...

The first under this concept is that if expansion stops, then time stops, which means all motion stops. Motion is directly referenced to time and if this were the case, then the universe would become a static model. But would expansion stop before entropy turned the universe into a rather sparse soup of individual quarks?

The second, would be that if expansion reverses, eg contraction starts, then the arrow of time moves backwards, replaying all of existence in reverse right back to the big bang, where time I presume would move forwards again after the implosion and subsequent expansion.

Just a thought ;-)

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: f4andHALFtoads

Hi f4andHALFtoads

I really like the way you think and much of your proposal makes a great deal of sense to me. It reminds me of something else I read recently in which the author has a kind of platonic dialogue with his own "inner-truth". If you can get past the strange method that he derives his info then what he has to offer is pretty compelling. Or at least I found it to be so.

Here is a very thorough and detailed discussion on exactly what space and time is. It posits that our universe is right now the whole completeness from the singularity all the way back to the "big crunch"... singularity again. And time is the way we perceive our movement between the two. He indicates that this movement is an expansion... and then a contraction. Its... pretty fascinating in a curious way.

He also has whole chapters on dimensions and densities and... well... he gets into all of the stuff about the structure of our universe. But the chapter on space and time is here:

Space and Time

The approach is very much metaphysical but the info is largely congruent with what science seems to know. Or so it seems to me. I'd love to hear what you think!

Time is the expansion of space

Does that make my belly older than the rest of me ?

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

"you suggest that space isn't really expanding, it just seems that way because gravity is pulling matter together to occupy less space, giving the appearance that space is increasing. But that doesn't really square with our observations.

We believe the universe is expanding because most objects we observe have a red Doppler shift, meaning most objects we obseve are moving away from us."

But if the universe started out as being massive and is shrinking, then the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation we see is a huge sphere of heat from which we are receding, as we sink deeper into the gravitational well of the Milky Way and as spacetime slows ever more and as the universe cools. Where is the evidence that we're not observing the acceleration of a shrinking universe as looking from the inside out? Spacetime is most condensed locally where gravity has has the most time to pull matter together. Where spacetime was most sparse was in the distant past, time moved quicker and the period of 'inflation' was in fact the quickening implosion of the plasma soup as matter coalesced under the ever increasing force of gravity eventually allowing the first stars then galaxies and clusters to form. A red doppler shift can be interpreted in different ways. The blue of Andromeda maybe slowing so that one day it too turns red as our shrinking spacetime isolates us ever more and we sink into the slippery pit lurking at Sagitarius A*.

a reply to: JonMel77

True, if there is another explaination for the red shift, then maybe the universe isn't expanding. The expanding universe theory creates just as many problems as it explains, like the need for dark matter and dark energy to explain our observations.

After all, we're just guessing about the nature of the universe when we've barely gotten off this mudball. We're bound to be wrong about a lot of things. We just stick to these guesses until we know better. Imagine Hawaiian natives at around 500 AD trying to explain the nature of the world, and then seeing the Himalayan mountains for the first time.

www.youtube.com...

Astronomy has demonstrated that space is, indeed, expanding; or to be more succinct the objects that occupy space are expanding outward. Whether they will continue to expand forever or reach some critical mass and then rush back together on themselves is the astronomical question of the hour. Whether you can tie the movement of time or the perception of it to the outward expansion of space and the objects in it is questionable since time, as we know it, began with the Big Bang and continues to move at the same steady pace as always.

If the sensation of time is tied to the expansion of space and If that space is moving or expanding more and more quickly than before, wouldn't we expect to perceive time moving more quickly as well? Shouldn't hours feel like they are passing more quickly than before, days, weeks, months & years? Einstein posited that space is curved and that anyone, (or anything), that begins to move in one direction will eventually arrive back to where it began; how would that concept fit in with your theory. I certainly do not have the answer; I am just speculating. Whatever one may think or hypothesize, one thing is certain: there are always more questions than answers.

One other thing Einstein is quoted as saying, is this: "The only true purpose of time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." As long as time continues to meet that criteria, I'll be happy...

So you are saying that 7 day creation is just a matter of perspective realitive to expansion and rotation. So then it becomes possible that this expansion has a flip side that could rotate us back into a reverse expansion to the begining. Much like a donut or figure 8. Givin that the ole saying every action has an opposite reaction. So in order to continue on this coarse we would have to create our own energy to pull away from this system.

a reply to: taoistguy


For the wise man looks into space and he knows there is no limited dimensions.

Lao Tzu

A bit nihilist... but poignant...

Time is the movement of particles through spacetime, which can be observed and measured, in relation to the speed of light.

Not really anything to do with densities of objects.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Hi Dave,

Thanks for posting..

You know it's funny, but I'm smoking outside and my sister in law has just asked me "where do I want my desert" and I replied "in a minute"... She is French, speaks perfect English, and the answer made perfect sense: Time as Space. She also makes amazing deserts so I will keep my reply to you brief...

You make a welcome insertion of point: the fact that we don't 'know' if we exist in an open or a closed system.

I used to believe wholeheartedly in the closed model. It's so neat, and reflects in the beating of a heart or the cycle of breath. Universe just keeps ticking. I then learned that science is 'fairly' certain that our universe will not contract back in on itself but will gently continue to proceed on a path to increased entropy, just to peter out. (And time to cease?.)

That's when I started to think we might have been created by a black hole event in the manner in which I describe in an earlier post to Spy66. The matter of our universe spreading itself out on the fabric of a greater canvas.

In this 'open universe' scenario then yes, i do believe that in this sector of the greater universe's space there would be no time, until such time as this matter was put back into 'work'.

Desert was vanilla panacotta with passionfruit syrup. I'm still licking my lips...

Then there is the original closed system model... Bootifool, who posts below you links to a gentleman's work that is rather compelling, bringing my thinking again in a circle... I believe wholeheartedly in keeping an open mind, because as soon as you set yourself, then you close yourself off to the truth.

a reply to: Bootifool

You are Bootifool, and your mind is clear.

... Quick reply to say thanks for linking us to some super material. It will take time to filter into the old noggin/universe, at which point I relish the 'future' (sic) discussion.

For now I would like to draw the attention of like minded people towards a thread which petered out before its time; actually posted by the same guy, 'zingdad', who was/is a member of ATS.

Fascinating and very confident stuff: www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: McGinty

McGinty, I love humour as I love food: in plenty. I do so hope that you are as proud of your belly as your belly stands proud of you.

originally posted by: Aleister
And just to round it out, as I've said several times on ATS and elsewhere (drum roll for my pet theory with absolutely no maths to back it up), gravity and time are the same thing.

Aleister - love your post and have been thinking... Sorry for the slow response. And yes, Maths would be good - it is a regret.

Zero Gravity = No Time

Hmmm

Is gravity the 'exact same thing' as time? Or is it that gravity creates pull/movement with which to create/measure/distort time?

I am postulating that a change in density could be a 'thing' that time is. I see no reason to disbelieve that the effect of gravity could also be a 'thing' that time is. I would certainly love to hear from someone who has Maths and who could set the language of the universe to the thought...

a reply to: f4andHALFtoads

Hey wow, f4andHALFtoads, I didn't know Zingdad ever posted here. But that seems to be a while ago. Which is too bad.

But that was a great thread and it was really good to read those interactions. The original post was material that I had already seen on his site but the following conversations were really pretty cool. It's a pity that ended... But thanks for sharing that link!

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: f4andHALFtoads

Using your current idea that time is produced by expansion of the universe, let's look at a couple of situations...

The first under this concept is that if expansion stops, then time stops, which means all motion stops. Motion is directly referenced to time and if this were the case, then the universe would become a static model. But would expansion stop before entropy turned the universe into a rather sparse soup of individual quarks?

The second, would be that if expansion reverses, eg contraction starts, then the arrow of time moves backwards, replaying all of existence in reverse right back to the big bang, where time I presume would move forwards again after the implosion and subsequent expansion.

Just a thought ;-)

Cheers - Dave

The desert sounds good! Whether or not time is an expression of expansion or an underlying mitigator in the expression of motion is a good question. I know as long as we live in this virtual reality however, we are kind of stuck with time. I also believe that both Newton and Einstein were right on the question of time, in that there are both absolute and relativistic time frames. Even though the Einsteinian model of relativism is the most touted, in some of our experiments, absolute frames of temporal reference show up, especially in cases of gravity wave interferometry via temporal proxy.

Further research required obviously, I don't think we'll have a rational explanation as to the source of time in our lifetimes.

Cheers - Dave