It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What if time doesn't exist outside of a black hole's event horizon?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Ok so I will start out by saying that this thread is purely hypothetical, a thought exercise if you will. Now then, I had a rather interesting thought based on a few scientific theories and facts.
As a brief introduction, there is the fact that gravitational forces, depending on their strength can either increase or decrease the flow of time within their field of influence. This is true to a larger degree within the event horizon of a black hole. The closer one gets to the center of it, the slower time is perceived to move for the subject by the observer, while the subject would notice no difference in the flow of time. For a visual reference on this, watch the movie Interstellar. The observer, with no increase in gravity would also perceive their own flow of time to be moving at "normal" speed.

Now, it is hypothesized and in a few cases known to be true that there are super-massive black holes at the center of some galaxies and everything in the galaxy is technically at some fringe or another of its event horizon. Our own galaxy may well be among them, and in my mind this would be a good explanation for space having a somewhat directionless micro-gravity field. The hypothesis I propose is this: that the existence of a super-massive black hole at the center of each galaxy is what regulates the flow of and in fact creates the fourth dimension that we all perceive as the flow of time. Even more interesting is that if this were the case, the farther you got from the galactic center, the less effect this dimension would have on you and you would therefore live perceptibly longer.

Other repercussions for this hypothesis would be that if you were to go far enough away from the sphere of influence for any of these galactic super-massive black holes, you would no longer experience the flow of time. Not in the sense that you could not still count it on a chronometer but you could potentially experience a collapse, a time crash if you will and any and all fourth dimension potential you had, have or will have would coexist simultaneously. It is hard to explain that further much less imagine it because we are and have been since our inception as a thinking species bound by time.

Thoughts on the subject anyone?




posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I would think in this hypothetical case other laws of physics would break down as well, without this 4th dimension influence would we still be able to readily observe and gauge the other 3? Would we know if we were in motion for example? If there is no gravity to influence time and it became unperceivably slow I think you would be facing more than a time crash but a complete mind crash. People are geared to need this perspective to make sense of basically anything. If you could do this I would bet if you survived it at all you would come back bats# crazy at least.



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Jekka

*raises hand slowly*

Um, I was under the impression that gravity only affected mass.

How much does time weigh?

(or is that a stupid question. I'll accept stupid, if it is.)



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Jekka

What if time only occurs in this dimension as a physical variable because we choose to measure it and plan our existences by it? For that matter, how might it affect our physical world if we simply stopped measuring it?



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: sycomix

I absolutely agree but that poses the further question of whether or not the three primary spatial dimensions are dependent on time. To my knowledge, time is the means by which motion is conveyed within them so if it were removed from the equation either space would become static or infinitely dynamic. So technically speaking you could come back from it many trillions of times over from differing points and differing times as that point of reference would still be valid within the gravitational sphere of influence. You could, in effect clone yourself many times over at different points and if you remained linked to all of these selves you would effectively become an omnipotent being as you could be not only everywhere but at every point in measurable time.



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Jekka

*raises hand slowly*

Um, I was under the impression that gravity only affected mass.

How much does time weigh?

(or is that a stupid question. I'll accept stupid, if it is.)


Gravity does affect mass by giving it a perceptible weight but it also by virtue of afflicting it in that way gives it a frame of time based on its overall strength. Not a stupid question.



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Jekka

Another simple question, if you don't mind.

Do you think time measures differently, say on Jupiter vs Earth?

Because of gravitational differences.



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: Jekka

What if time only occurs in this dimension as a physical variable because we choose to measure it and plan our existences by it? For that matter, how might it affect our physical world if we simply stopped measuring it?



That is an interesting question. Time is something that exists without measuring in much the same way as space does. A foot is measured as such because we decided to quantify something that already exists. Our measurement of time is a biological reaction to events and forces around us. We as a species have a natural circadian rhythm that divides both ours and the motion of other things into segments and naturally creates a sort of measurement system without conscious thought. We originally attributed this to the sunrise and sunset but if that were what governed it, we wouldn't experience jet lag among other things. We as a young species took notice first of the regular motion of the sun and moon in the sky. As we advanced we noticed variations in this and came to recognize and predict seasons, we then started using the moon, a regularly changing event to mark out months and so on. I think it would be an interesting thing to observe others attempt but ceasing the measurement of time at this point is something I don't think would be possible.



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Jekka

Another simple question, if you don't mind.

Do you think time measures differently, say on Jupiter vs Earth?

Because of gravitational differences.


I don't mind at all. Time would indeed measure differently between the two but not in a noticeable increment. You can actually notice with a highly precise (down to nanoseconds) pair of time pieces a difference in time between someone in Earth's orbit vs someone on its surface as the effect of gravity would be slightly different for the two.



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   
I thought time was an invention to measure how things change incrementally time really only effects humans.



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Jekka

Another simple question, if you don't mind.

Do you think time measures differently, say on Jupiter vs Earth?

Because of gravitational differences.


Yes though not in a perceivable way from your perspective, basically the same reason they have to constantly reset the clocks on GPS satellites.



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Brotherman
I thought time was an invention to measure how things change incrementally time really only effects humans.


That may have been how it started, but as soon as we got to where we could quantify it as a dimension it kinda from there takes on a life of it's own... me thinks anyway.



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: sycomix

originally posted by: Brotherman
I thought time was an invention to measure how things change incrementally time really only effects humans.


That may have been how it started, but as soon as we got to where we could quantify it as a dimension it kinda from there takes on a life of it's own... me thinks anyway.


Time affects all things, humans are just the first to quantify and chronicle it that we know of. The observation and quantification of time was necessary for us to properly become an agrarian society. It did in effect take on a life of its own but not in the conventional way, its more that the further we study it the more we know that we don't know about it.
edit on 21-8-2015 by Jekka because: made an addition



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Jekka

Surely time is just a human concept, I would argue that time doesn't exist at all.


edit on 21-8-2015 by Elvis_Is_Dead because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Allow me to pile on with the stupid questions...

Using Mars as an example, a day is slightly more than 24 hours because of the speed it rotates and a year is around 686 days because of the distance from the sun. So, if a man has a lifespan of 100 years on Earth, would he live the same or nearly double the amount of days on Mars?



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: RomaSempre

He would live virtually the same amount of time (I say "virtually" only due to the minute differences in the passage of time due to differences in the force of gravity on Mars as opposed to Earth -- but those are so minute that they are no relevant).

The time scales used to track that time would differ, but the time itself would be the same. I mean. I could claim I'm 203 years old, because I count my age by a "year" of the planet Mercury (one orbit of Mercury around the sun). However, even though I'd claim I'm 203 Mercury years old, the amount of time that has passed since I was born would be same if I counted my age in Earth years.

It doesn't matter what accounting method I use to talley up that time. I could count my age by the number of vibrations of a cesium 133 atom that occurred since my birth, I could say I am (about) "2.94 x 10^21 cesium 133 vibrations" old (by the way -- I don't look a day over 2.5 x 10^21 vibrations).


edit on 8/21/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Elvis_Is_Dead
a reply to: Jekka

Surely time is just a human concept, I would argue that time doesn't exist at all.



Then why doesn't everything in the universe happen at once?



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Elvis_Is_Dead
a reply to: Jekka

Surely time is just a human concept, I would argue that time doesn't exist at all.



Then why doesn't everything in the universe happen at once?



To answer your rhetoric, because gravity as it affects what we call time causes entropic flow.



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Jekka

Interesting but not entirely correct.

There would still be a nominal and even "flow of time" in all reference frames.

The Lorentz contraction shows how that flow of time would be perceived between different frames of reference.

The actual 'flow of time' within each frame of reference would appear normal and consistent to those within that frame.

Also gravitation follows the inverse square law and so the local effect of a gravitational singularity would drop off very rapidly (in spatial, not temporal terms).

But an interesting thought experiment.

Cheerz



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Brotherman
I thought time was an invention to measure how things change incrementally time really only effects humans.


Time is real and physical because everything does not happen at once, whether humans are present to perceive it, or not.




top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join