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.

# Creation of the Universe and time dilation

page: 1
0
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 01:33 AM
Im going to post a concept, or theory that I have about the creation of the universe and time dilation. I posted this on a different forum and received some mixed results.

First, learn about time dilation here.

members.tripod.com...

Now for my theory, or idea. Keep in mind im not good with math.

For the example, consider that the universe was created in a "big bang" (for this example only)

If the universe is created in an instant, and is expanding, it is obviously moving very fast. Now say that the creation is expanding near the speed of light. (it is often said that the power needed to time travel could be as much as that of an exploding star, so perhaps the "big bang" could create such enery)

If in fact the universe was created like this, and we factor in time dilation, could it infact "age" faster than it is being created.

Say that the universe is 200 billion years old, could it be that it took considerably less time than that for it to be created ? Could the universe in fact be much younger than we believe because of time dilation.

Now at the speed of light time is nothing, and if it goes faster, it reverses. So that would mean the universe would collapse if its creation exceeded the speed of light.

Anyways, could this work ?

Just an idea I had.

The formula for using time dilation is in the link, if that at all helps.

Im confused now.

posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 12:20 PM
anything......anyone?

posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 07:36 PM
I'm not totally acceptant of the standard model so I don't understand the concepts of time dilation with regards to relativity theory.

What is it exactly that prevents light from traveling at infinite velocity?

posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 08:08 PM
Paradox, thats what. I know that modern physics says that is what happens to massive(particles with mass not huge particles) particle as it approaches the speed of light, but I have always had a problem with that as it well does not compute. I hate paradox's they do not make any sense and I reject things that do not make any sense. Who knows I could be completely wrong but thats how I understand it.

posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 08:20 PM
well even if you are unsure, you can look at the evidence they did with atomic clocks.

two atomic clocks with the same initial time:

1- is left on the ground
2-is flown at a high rate of speed in an airplane

after the flight, the clock in the plane had a different time, although it was not much (then again it wasnt going anywhere near the speed of light)

this proves time dilation.

posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 08:30 PM
Oh yeah there is no doubt about that
I just do not believe in the infinite energy phonemon. Reasons? None really, it just does not compute for some reason
Not very scientific I know but I'm not a scientist heh

[edit on 13-4-2005 by sardion2000]

posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 08:34 PM
I have a problem with the whole light speed thing. Why do they say that the closer you get to light speed, your mass increases and at light speed, you will have infinite mass.

How can you "gain" mass? I thought that energy/matter couldn't be created, and mass is a measurement of how much matter there is...

posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 08:35 PM

Originally posted by stumason
I have a problem with the whole light speed thing. Why do they say that the closer you get to light speed, your mass increases and at light speed, you will have infinite mass.

How can you "gain" mass? I thought that energy/matter couldn't be created, and mass is a measurement of how much matter there is...

YES! That is the exact wording of the problem I have with the current theory right now. Thanks for putting it so elequently!

posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 08:44 PM
No problem. I have several problems with these Astro-physicists
.

I have a thread about the mapping of the Universe and how they have mapped the stars according to their perceived positions rather than actual...

My Thread

posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 08:48 PM
Did you ever look into a mirror with object that appear closer than they really are? Well light is actually capable of pushing itself faster than it is currently moving. Think about why would something that weighs almost nothing have a reall speed limit? Maybe the big bang was when the sun first appeared and its light is infinite. Maybe our perception of time is because infinity would look rather obscured to see everything possible happen in a instant and never see ourselfs living our lives. Never knowing that we existed and never getting to appreciate our reality. Could it really be just that simple? The mirror clearly shows that time is constant in perception as the space behind you is represted simotamoiusly unlike a atomic clock with to many moving parts that rub together for inacruacies.

Objects in the mirror appearing before the objects in front of you show the light reflect is moving slightly faster than the light in front of you. A lens magnifies light into a focused beam which is excellerating the light faster. Taking a laser into outer space will always yeild the same speed because the light is produceds the same way as in all stupidifical reaseacrh is repetion not reason or logical al the time.

Havn't you ever heard of the FLASH ran around the world so many times per second that time / people he passed repeatedly looked like they were slowing down? Repetion at work yet again. Cartoons characters to the rescue.

What does all this attempt to prove? Time is constant and as is reality your perception of time is your own. We all started out seeing it the same way.

posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 08:50 PM

Originally posted by stumason
No problem. I have several problems with these Astro-physicists
.

I have a thread about the mapping of the Universe and how they have mapped the stars according to their perceived positions rather than actual...

My Thread

Well in thier defence how can they map thier actual positions? A nova or above could have changed thier orentation.

I personally think Astro-Physicists are right about alot of stuff it's just I think they take too much it as gospel. Interesting times to live in, I personally think that we are gonna unlock the secrets of our "Brane" by looking at the Quantum World, that is where it's at IMHO. That and Multi-Dimensional theories, Newtonian Physics is dead and dying, there are no abosolute "laws" only "probabilities".

posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 08:58 PM

Well in thier defence how can they map thier actual positions? A nova or above could have changed thier orentation.

Exactly.

But, they can map them based on observations made about speed/direction.

But we take what they say as Gospel, and they say that this star is here and that star is there, when they are not.

The Milky Way/Universe may not be the exact shape we think it is (or mapped it as such), and that could have serious ramifications on other work.

It may in fact be the shape of a large boob, but we don't know it as we map the stars wrong.

posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 09:08 PM
It proves that atomic clocks aren't very accurate when they're in motion

Maybe this is the Michelson Morley experiment done more correctly.

What is the speed of dark anyway?

Someone answer my question please, before I go nuts. Why is light confined to the speed of light if it travels through a medium which has no properties?

[edit on 13-4-2005 by electric]

posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 09:44 PM

Originally posted by electric
Someone answer my question please, before I go nuts. Why is light confined to the speed of light if it travels through a medium which has no properties?
[edit on 13-4-2005 by electric]

Because 'light does not have mass'.

I don't believe that though, just can't prove it.

I've also questioned why light can travel at the speed of light even though it's constantly colliding with other atomic structures.

I remember this experiment we had in college physics. We were studying the refracting of light and how you can prove light functions as a wave because of the refractive properties. My lab instructor placed a ball in front of our light source and the light went through the ball only projecting a small dot of light onto the other side. When we asked him how that was possible all he said was (and he was of Asian ancestory so he could just mumble and get away with it, b/c no one wanted to question or embarass his english) "very hard to understand" and walked off. Why he showed us that, i don't know.

I've come to the possible explanations of light. A. We have no idea what is really going on. B. Some people do know, but it's on the Top Secret list : P

posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 10:06 PM
Back to my simple initial quetion. using time dilation (the atomic clock test) could the universe age or "time travel" as its initially created?

Meaning, in the time it took for the said "big bang" and the speed at which the big bang occured, could it age faster than it has existed?

I find it hard to put into words.

Check out this page for your measuring speed of light questions.

math.ucr.edu...

posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 10:21 PM

Someone answer my question please, before I go nuts. Why is light confined to the speed of light if it travels through a medium which has no properties?

The Vacuum of space is far from empty, it is the actual fabric of our brane so to speak. Alot of people are calling space a Quantum Vacuum as it is in constance oscilliation most likely due to the huge explosion that created all the energy and matter in the universe more commonly known as "The Big Bang" allthough I like to call it the "Big Slap" now as I am really liking the terminology and theoretical work being done in String Theory to date.

As for the speed of dark, there is no way to know without travelling outside of our universe into whatever is there and measuring it. It could be that our Brane is travelling far faster then c but we just do not know. Alot of things we just don't know yet but are getting ever closer to the answers we are seeking.

Meaning, in the time it took for the said "big bang" and the speed at which the big bang occured, could it age faster than it has existed?

Age and Time are concepts "invented" by humans. Time as is being described nowadays by Theoretical Physists exists all at the same time. Wrap your brain around that if you can because I cannot
Read up on Entropy Theory, depressing stuff but it's basically what Time is. Decay rate speeds up and slows down depending on how fast said particle is travelling. That is how Atomic Clocks work, by measuring the decay of a radioactive isotope because it's regular when it's speed is constant(everything is in motion we are travelling very fast right now even though it seems we are not moving at all), yet if you speed it up say in orbit the decay rate slows down!

EDIT: Oh an btw there are never "Simple" answers and "simple" questions when asking about stuff like this, it ALWAYS gets into very heavy territory.

[edit on 13-4-2005 by sardion2000]

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 12:42 AM
so then how does entropic decay factor in with my time dilation big bang time traveling universe ?

lol that sounds awesome.

btw was entropic decay something in the end of the video game "perfect dark"?

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:18 PM
I was driving home the other day and was thinking about that experiment where they had the slits like the number 11 and tried shooting atoms or something through it and when they watched the atom stabelized.

The effect of consiousness made the atom react. So now I figure that humans when starting out start off as small cells dividing. Now the universe probably started off as a atom that was all over the place then along comes consiousness and interacts with the atom and bamo the big bang.

Now that consiousness is all through the universe all the matter reacts in a somewhat stable form so we now see planets etc. Every animal or creature has consiousness but only humans have a brain that can notice it.

Without consiousness in the universe the atoms in everything would probably collapse into randomness and return to their state before consiousness arrived.

Not sure if this makes any scense but I was thinking about it.

top topics

0