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.

 

Does Time apply to space?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 11:46 PM
link   
I don't have the answer either. Maybe it erodes, like half-life, after certain amount of time or say if introduced a new source, like a chemical reaction. Where is Einstein when you need him?


I am sure if he had the time, he would have combined electricty with gravity and opened up new dimensions to us, in which this question might have been answered.

[edit on 8/16/2004 by surfup]




posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by surfup
My question is if gravity is related to time and the black hole's gravity effect on the stars increases as the black hole pulls the stars, as a result doesn't time become slower? If that is so, then couldn't there be an object that would have negative effects on the stars, therefore causing time to go faster, if not backwards??? I have read of white objects, which some say to be the opposite of black hole. Is that true?


White holes are hypothetical and so there is no proof of their existence. I think it would be interesting to study an object that spits out matter out of nothing!

I have also heard that black holes and white holes are connected by worm holes.
Schwarzchild geometry is interesting. Here is the link: casa.colorado.edu...
"The Schwarzschild metric admits negative square root as well as positive square root solutions for the geometry.
The complete Schwarzschild geometry consists of a black hole, a white hole, and two Universes connected at their horizons by a wormhole.
The negative square root solution inside the horizon represents a white hole. A white hole is a black hole running backwards in time. Just as black holes swallow things irretrievably, so also do white holes spit them out. White holes cannot exist, since they violate the second law of thermodynamics. "


[edit on 17-8-2004 by jp1111]



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by jp1111
White holes are hypothetical and so there is no proof of their existence. I think it would be interesting to study an object that spits out matter out of nothing!


So Universe was a white hole before Big Bang, no it doesn't make any sense, Universe wasn't there before Big Bang, so therefore Big Bang came out of nothing, isn't that what whites holes are supposed to do? So are white holes are universe formers?

I haven't read the link yet, so if my answers are answers, forget it.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by surfup
So Universe was a white hole before Big Bang, no it doesn't make any sense, Universe wasn't there before Big Bang, so therefore Big Bang came out of nothing, isn't that what whites holes are supposed to do? So are white holes are universe formers?


As I said earlier, white holes are hypothetical and so they can't be used to describe the Big-bang theory. Talking about where the universe came from, we don't have any answer! I wonder If we ever will!
An article here sums up some theories about how the universe was created: curious.astro.cornell.edu...



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 04:04 AM
link   
I think that you're having trouble with some questions about time, because you still see time and space as seperate things. They're not! The easiest way to understand how space and time mix is the following analogy (although it's not really mathematically correct):

Let's say you have some graph paper. The y-axis is movement in time, the x-axis movement in space. We define a reference system on the origin that will stay stationairy for us, observers. In every reference frame you have 1 unit for movement through time and space to divide. When you stand still, all this movement goes to movement through time. When you move through space, you have to move slower through time or else you'll use more than 1 unit of movement. In your own reference frame you always move at 1 unit of movement through time. If you want to read about these ideas of special relativity and examples using these graphs, look up Minkowski diagrams or Space-Time diagrams as they're sometimes called.

As for gravitational time dilation, time runs slower in a gravitational field. I have trouble explaining explaining it mathematically, because a solid surface that works against gravity is not a normal case. Normally in a gravitational field the speeds of movement through space and time are changed by a tensor Γ. In flat spacetime, space without gravity, this tensor is always zero. I'll leave the explanation for the case with a solid surface to this page, which uses a free-falling frame to determine differences between clocks.

Photons don't decay, and since they move at the speed of light, they can't even decay. No time passes during movement for something that moves at the speed of light. Using the analogy of the first paragraph, a photon has put all of his 1 unit of movement into movement through space.

[edit on 17-8-2004 by amantine]



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Time is movement of space.

Atoms vibrating slower, and aging slower, is space moving slower. Whatever the external influence, it is an influence over the space.

Our measurement of space movement is relative to the orbit of our planet around our sun, and the rotation of our planet around its axis.

Time is the measurement system we use to compare the rate at which objects in space move. It's a concept. One thing can move slower and age slower than the same thing, somewhere else under different influences, but within the same measurement of time.

Saying the "time" of that thing moves slower or faster is misleading, as it is the space, the vibrations of the thing, that are moving slower or faster in relation to another thing, moving, within the same time frame.. which is again relative to the Earth's orbit and rotation.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by amantine
Photons don't decay, and since they move at the speed of light, they can't even decay. No time passes during movement for something that moves at the speed of light. Using the analogy of the first paragraph, a photon has put all of his 1 unit of movement into movement through space.


So when they say this light is from XX galaxy 10 million years ago, they are measuring how far the galaxy is and how much light travels in a year? So that photon could have just begun its journey, but we could think it is 1000 million years old?



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by surfup
So when they say this light is from XX galaxy 10 million years ago, they are measuring how far the galaxy is and how much light travels in a year? So that photon could have just begun its journey, but we could think it is 1000 million years old?


We're talking about two different reference systems here. In our reference frame, the light did originate 10 million years ago and is therefore 10 million years 'old'. But because the photon travels at the speed of light, it experiences no time and the photon's moment of being created and being absorbed are the same in its own reference frame.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by surfup
So time exists everywhere?


I believe that in an area with no gravity, time moves so slowly that it seems as it there is no time.

Sides, there is no Deserted space (all matter gives off gravity, even particles, which is what is in the "Empty" Areas of Space. Everywhere, there are small particles of matter that give off gravity. We do not feel the gravity until the mass of the object with the gravity is massive (as in earth mass)



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by amantine
We're talking about two different reference systems here. In our reference frame, the light did originate 10 million years ago and is therefore 10 million years 'old'. But because the photon travels at the speed of light, it experiences no time and the photon's moment of being created and being absorbed are the same in its own reference frame.


Ohh, relativity. Everything goes back there, doesn't it?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join