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.

 

Time and Expansion are the same.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 03:56 AM
link   
I've had a brain storm this last night....

I have worked out what time is... Sounds to good to be true well not really.

First let me explain how I think and then let me explain why.

I believe that the expansion of the universe is actually what causes time to exist.

How do I mean??

Well we are all travelling around the earth as it turns. The earth then moves around the sun and the sun moves around the Galaxy and the galaxy moves around a cluster of galaxies and the cluster of galaxies moves around the super cluster etc etc etc.....

Now then knowing all that....

Wouldn't it be a true statement that Time Flows??

Well what if the entire universe was to stop moving?? Would everything on the earth fly off caused by inertia or would time itself just stop?

If you think of time as being an infinite number of slices and the slices are defined by the rate of expansion then you could say that if the universe's expansion is speeding up then time itself is speeding up....

Now there has been some evidence to suggest that light speed has slowed down.... but what if it's not the speed of light that has slowed but the expansion of the universe that has accelerated??

to summarise...

I say that our very movement through the cosmos is what causes our experience of time. If we were not to move through the cosmos time itself would not exist...

All the best,

NeoN HaZe....




posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 06:07 AM
link   
You ever thought that maybe time doesn't actually exist, time was just a unit of meaurement made up by man.

But hey, what do I know, physics aint my subject, never liked it never will.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   
I somewhat agree. I think the crux of the matter is that movement itself is what we perceive as time. We know that our observable universe is 4-Dimensional. Length, width, height, and time. Any object and/or event can be described using these 4 variables. We know also that physicists consider all of these dimensions collectivly as SpaceTime; That is to say that they are all part of the same fabric of the universe. So, it's my belief that removing time from the equation, would mean the dissolve of the universe as we know it. For that matter, the same holds true for the other 3. It's possible that a universe could theoreticaly exist with only the dimensions of length, width, and height, but the moment you add movement, you MUST add time to the equation. So I do think that Time is an effect of movement and vise versa. I dont think you can have one without the other. I don't however think that "expansion" is really the key here. Expansion, I think, just happens to fall under the broad umbrella of MOVEMENT.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neon Haze


I believe that the expansion of the universe is actually what causes time to exist.

[....]

Well what if the entire universe was to stop moving??
Would everything on the earth fly off caused by inertia
or would time itself just stop?





i attempted to visualize your 'frozen-in-time-universe'

but, in the spectator-witness role, i zoomed in with my minds' eye
and i saw that radioactive decay (Entropy) was still actively happening and
electrons were still spinning around the atomic nucelus, and the
sub-atomic quanta were popping into and out-of existence as usual.

all of these events seemed to have a duration or sequence
...as it was only the larger scaled, material universe that was 'stopped'
...because the 'appearance' of time still existed in
our adjoining 'dimensions/ scales /correspondences' within and
outside our observable cosmos.

perhaps 'expansion' even motion/vibration, or even probability are fractile
spin-offs of 'time' and not the other-way-around??

nice, thoughtful post you made



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neon Haze
Wouldn't it be a true statement that Time Flows??

Is this not what the concept of 'times arrow' means?


Well what if the entire universe was to stop moving?? Would everything on the earth fly off caused by inertia or would time itself just stop?

If everything was frozen in the universe and there was no change anywhere, down to the fundamental level, then I'd think that, de facto time has changed, since time can only be detected thru observation.


you could say that if the universe's expansion is speeding up then time itself is speeding up

Does expansion of the universe mean that things happen faster inside of it? I'd think no, no?


... but what if it's not the speed of light that has slowed but the expansion of the universe that has accelerated??

I thought it was established that the rate of expansion has "recently" increased?

If we were not to move through the cosmos time itself would not exist

We'd never know if it happened if it did tho. If, on the other hand, the celestial objects stopped moving and such, and the universe stopped expanding and the earth stopped turning, but say people animals and such were unhindered, then time would still be going on, people would grow old and die and clocks would spin.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
perhaps 'expansion' even motion/vibration, or even probability are fractile
spin-offs of 'time' and not the other-way-around??

nice, thoughtful post you made



I'm happy that there are more people out there that concur with my ideas. Thanks for your posts they are themselves very insightful


I wish more people had the visualisation powers that you have... so many people can't even visualise what is in the next room let alone how the cosmos works


Thanks again.

All the best,

Neon.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Weren't there theories that once the universe expands so far, that it will eventually contract? If so, then would we go backwards through time as the universe contracts?



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
perhaps 'expansion' even motion/vibration, or even probability are fractile
spin-offs of 'time' and not the other-way-around??

nice, thoughtful post you made



I'm happy that there are more people out there that concur with my ideas. Thanks for your posts they are themselves very insightful


I wish more people had the visualisation powers that you have... so many people can't even visualise what is in the next room let alone how the cosmos works


Thanks again.

All the best,

Neon.

Originally posted by steggyD
Weren't there theories that once the universe expands so far, that it will eventually contract? If so, then would we go backwards through time as the universe contracts?


hehehe lol well I know that theory though I tend to go with the expansion forever or the big rip theory myself...

though have you ever seen a comedy program called "Red Dwarf"?
it was a spoof Sci-fi series in the late 80's and 90's.

There was an episode called Backwards..

it was about the very thing you describe. the red dwarf (which was a mining space ship) had acquired a time drive and jumped through time to the future where the universe was contracting...

they land on earth and everything is back wards.. Ie. London was called Nodnol hehehe
)

Anyway you can image what it was like when they went to a pub and got a black eye sucked off the face in a fight


The funniest bit though was when they went to the Toilet!!! Especially cause it was a Number 2 lolololol ;p hehehe


All the best,

NeoN.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   


Time and Expansion are the same.


That's no new insight. You're just repeating what those that agree with the Big Bang theory want us to believe: that space and time were created simultaneously when the expansion of space began at a "singularity", a point of infinite density. According to this viewpoint, expansion of the universe, space and time are inconceivable by themselves. They imply one another. For these people, it is senseless to talk about what came before that, because there was no "before", so they never ask what came before the first nanosecond of the expansion, nor do they ask themselves why it started. They consider them to be meaningless questions. They claim that, just as in mathematics division by zero is impossible simply because it is undefined, so existence before the expansion of space is impossible because science cannot conceive it or define it. For a scientist, if it is inconceivable, it does not exist.
*



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Macrento



Time and Expansion are the same.


That's no new insight. You're just repeating what those that agree with the Big Bang theory want us to believe: that space and time were created simultaneously when the expansion of space began at a "singularity", a point of infinite density. According to this viewpoint, expansion of the universe, space and time are inconceivable by themselves. They imply one another. For these people, it is senseless to talk about what came before that, because there was no "before", so they never ask what came before the first nanosecond of the expansion, nor do they ask themselves why it started. They consider them to be meaningless questions. They claim that, just as in mathematics division by zero is impossible simply because it is undefined, so existence before the expansion of space is impossible because science cannot conceive it or define it. For a scientist, if it is inconceivable, it does not exist.
*


I'm confused by your post.... sorry... can you try and explain that again please??

What I got from your post was about what came before the Big bang?? I didn't say anything about that..

I was stating that perhaps what we perceave as time is in fact the Movement of Space nothing more nothing less.

I would agree with Spike... Rather than the Expansion I would change that to movement.

All the best,

Neon.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by spike
I somewhat agree. I think the crux of the matter is that movement itself is what we perceive as time. We know that our observable universe is 4-Dimensional. Length, width, height, and time. Any object and/or event can be described using these 4 variables. We know also that physicists consider all of these dimensions collectivly as SpaceTime; That is to say that they are all part of the same fabric of the universe. So, it's my belief that removing time from the equation, would mean the dissolve of the universe as we know it. For that matter, the same holds true for the other 3. It's possible that a universe could theoreticaly exist with only the dimensions of length, width, and height, but the moment you add movement, you MUST add time to the equation. So I do think that Time is an effect of movement and vise versa. I dont think you can have one without the other. I don't however think that "expansion" is really the key here. Expansion, I think, just happens to fall under the broad umbrella of MOVEMENT.


I somewhat follow but as I said physics was never my thing, thanks for the insight anyways.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neon Haze

Originally posted by St Udio
perhaps 'expansion' even motion/vibration, or even probability are fractile
spin-offs of 'time' and not the other-way-around??

nice, thoughtful post you made




Originally posted by steggyD
Weren't there theories that once the universe expands so far, that it will eventually contract? If so, then would we go backwards through time as the universe contracts?


hehehe lol well I know that theory though I tend to go with the expansion forever or the big rip theory myself...

though have you ever seen a comedy program called "Red Dwarf"?
it was a spoof Sci-fi series in the late 80's and 90's.

There was an episode called Backwards..

it was about the very thing you describe. the red dwarf (which was a mining space ship) had acquired a time drive and jumped through time to the future where the universe was contracting...

they land on earth and everything is back wards.. Ie. London was called Nodnol hehehe
)

Anyway you can image what it was like when they went to a pub and got a black eye sucked off the face in a fight


The funniest bit though was when they went to the Toilet!!! Especially cause it was a Number 2 lolololol ;p hehehe


All the best,

NeoN.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   


(posted by Neon Haze)
I'm confused by your post.... sorry... can you try and explain that again please??


Maybe your own ideas are even more confusing. Why would there be no time in a static universe? Fred Hoyle, the creator of the static-universe model, and who coined the phrase "Big Bang", and meant it to be a scornful name, never ever suggested that a non-expanding universe with no beginning or end in time had to be a universe where time would be inconceivable.

Anyway, no matter how crazy your idea might sound, it is no crazier than the ideas of the scientists concerning time and space, and cosmology in general, and it is inevitable, because they are trying to grasp the "ungraspable". It is impossible for reason to handle the concept of infinity, and whenever it tries to do so it runs into paradoxical situations. The philosophers discovered this thousands of years ago, and now science is covering the same ground, just as unsuccessfully, it seems.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Just like the spatial dimension expands, time expands.

By the way, our universe is 2-dimensional: there is the spatial dimension, and the time dimension. The spacial dimension has 3 components: x, y and z.

Maybe time also has more components than one.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   
.
Is time the sequence of the Universe from a high energy state to a lower energy state?

The original light rays/photons are now [background] microwaves.

As with chemical reactions there may be a rising threshold to get to some lower energy states.
The steady progress of time implies some series of regular small thresholds being overcome.

Time can be seen as a set of transitory states that in totality ever progress towards some ultimate lowest energy state.

Sort of an entrophy from a state of condensed configuration to a state of unstructured diffuseness.

That would sort of fit with Black holes being virtually stopped time.

It also implies the time is the spread/flattening of waves into the 3 spacial dimensions perpindicular to the gravity dimension.

It might imply that if you could build some kind of rigid unspreading structure perpindicular to the spacial dimensions it would be in essence time-less. Little bits of frozen time. Perhaps there are particles that already have this nature.

It also implies that time is the transitioning from a state of many dimensions to a state of lower dimensions. ie. nD->(n-1)D-> . . . ->4D->3D->2D->1D->0D-> -1D?
Strings in string theory have 5, 11, 20, etc dimensions all tightly curled up on themselves.

To reverse the spread effect of time, you would have to draw together [contract] instead of spread, which is why it would be virtually impossible to turn an entire universe backwards in time, but you might be able to reverse some local amount of space into a contracting area/spike. That would tend to create a ring of faster time at the circumference of the contracting spike/area.

edit:spelling

[edit on 22-6-2005 by slank]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join