It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

My questions: Where was primeval atom located? How fast are we travling away from that location?

page: 4
5
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 01:41 AM

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

The facor you leave out is the distance away from the Earht gravity well. SplitInfinity

Then what is the dividing line between too close to the well? That is, "What minimum altitude?"

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 08:06 AM

There is no "minimum distance" to or from a gravity well that time dilation occurs. Theoretically, a clock on the ground will run more slowly than a clock 10 feet in the air. If that clock was in a plane at 35,000 feet, the difference would be greater. Put that clock at 200 miles above the ground (such as on the space station), then it would be greater still. However, there WILL still be a difference in relative time for two clocks with only a 10 foot difference in distance from the center of the gravity well.

There is no point that gravity "lets go" of a body. The effective force of a gravity well acting on another object will only slowly and incrementally decrease with distance away from the center of that gravity well.

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:25 PM
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

With that explained, would the experiment I've outlined, or at the very least alluded to, in my previous posts to Split be worth it in finding out if centrifugal force could be a substitute for gravity in en.wikipedia.org... ?

edit on 19-1-2012 by LilDudeissocool because: I changed some wording in my question.

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:54 PM

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
Ummmm What do you think would be the result if you place an atomic clock inside a centrifuge? Would the Gs generated by the centrifuge cause the atomic clock to slow as mass does?
It's already been tested, and as predicted by relativity, there's no effect on the clock. Source:

van.physics.illinois.edu...

Keep in mind that "g-forces" are only using Earth's gravity as a baseline, and centripetal acceleration is not the same as gravitational acceleration. The "g's" may mislead one into thinking there's a commonality, when it's just a common unit of measurement.

Likewise I could say I weigh 1/50 as much as an elephant, so my mass is 0.02 elephant. That doesn't mean I have anything personally to do with an elephant, just like a g-force isn't necessarily a gravitational force; if g's are from centripetal acceleration in a centrifuge, it's not a gravitational force, so no time dilation is predicted.

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 04:03 PM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
That doesn't mean I have anything personally to do with an elephant, just like a g-force isn't necessarily a gravitational force; if g's are from centripetal acceleration in a centrifuge, it's not a gravitational force, so no time dilation is predicted.

If this were true, special relatively would be false. The acceleration of a space ship would be artificial like the centrifuge and dilation would not happen.

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 06:54 PM

Originally posted by consciousgod

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
That doesn't mean I have anything personally to do with an elephant, just like a g-force isn't necessarily a gravitational force; if g's are from centripetal acceleration in a centrifuge, it's not a gravitational force, so no time dilation is predicted.

If this were true, special relatively would be false. The acceleration of a space ship would be artificial like the centrifuge and dilation would not happen.

Ditto! And mind these experiments are also based on analysis of results where mistakes can be made, not something like an atomic clock that would be infallible. How many times were the experiments made? I would like to know. They were unable given the method of measurement to fractionate down to one quadrillionth of a nanoseconds which would be required on the scale they in 1966 were performing their experiment on. They only went to 2.197 microseconds. They needed to run the centrifuge for years to get any meaningful data. Making the well deep enough to measure any meaningful results can only be done one way on such a scale, you have to rune the centrifuge a really long time which obviously they didn't. With using an atomic clock duration would really not be much of a factor given how percipience an atomic clock is. In 1966 atomic clocks were to large so they had to do the reading of decay by hand.

With that said a great find by Arbitrageur! I sifted the web for hours and came up completely empty.

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:19 PM

I'm just curious, do you believe in gravitons?

posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

There is no "minimum distance" to or from a gravity well that time dilation occurs. Theoretically, a clock on the ground will run more slowly than a clock 10 feet in the air. If that clock was in a plane at 35,000 feet, the difference would be greater. Put that clock at 200 miles above the ground (such as on the space station), then it would be greater still. However, there WILL still be a difference in relative time for two clocks with only a 10 foot difference in distance from the center of the gravity well.

There is no point that gravity "lets go" of a body. The effective force of a gravity well acting on another object will only slowly and incrementally decrease with distance away from the center of that gravity well.

This is completely correct. Split Infinity

posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 08:08 PM

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
PS PS

Split, do you think time speeds could be layered in the topography of the fabric of space like winds aloft? Wind speed increasing as elevation increases. Mind you this is simply an analogy.

The main reason that Time Diatation occurs is that TIME ITSELF IS NOT LINEAR...this fact is very much confirmed by Time Dialation Experiments as well as people who are SENSITIVES...and this is real as Psycics have been used in Police work for decades with much sucess as well as certain Intell. services of several countries inversing Billions on people who are REMOTE VIEWERS and the such.

Tme for us seems like it is flowing from present to future but that is only or brains perception as I was trying to describe in Microcosum with the Humming Bird example. In reality....everything there is or was or will be whether that be action or material or energy can be accessed at any point by a Method of Folding Space/Time Geometry.

As far as Space/Time Geometry or Topology...this is effected by many features such as Large amounts of a Collection of Matter or Energy as well as how our Universe is expanding and Space itself is in motion not just Galaxies. The closest anyone has come to grasp Space/Time Geomery is with a representation of 10 or 11 dimentional states...but I believe there are more than that. Split Infinity

posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:10 PM

I keep forgetting that we are on the same page with predetermination. That we both fully understand everything that is and will occur in our universe is linked in a spiderweb of sequences back to the singularity.

We part company on the remote viewing however. Not that I don't think it will possible at a future date when science catches up to how to map out future events. I believe at this point that so call E-sensory perceptions are a result of, if I may use this cliche, a broken clock is correct twice a day. Say what time is is without looking at a clock and you will eventually get time time right eventually. I also understand how cold reading works. It's made me a real skeptic of this subject.

With that said, I'll make clear I do believe now in the multiverse theory of Dr. Kaku. I understand that all things that happen are a result of how much total energy is contained in the Universe, and other universe would have less or more total energy creating alternate possibilities. Even free choice, or freewill, whatever one wants to call it, is an illusion. All thoughts are connected to the time we are born to the time we die. Our environments we live in throughout our lives are all created out of the sequence of events linked all the way back to the singularity.

At any rate I understand what you mean now. :-)

posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:59 PM

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

I keep forgetting that we are on the same page with predetermination. That we both fully understand everything that is and will occur in our universe is linked in a spiderweb of sequences back to the singularity.

We part company on the remote viewing however. Not that I don't think it will possible at a future date when science catches up to how to map out future events. I believe at this point that so call E-sensory perceptions are a result of, if I may use this cliche, a broken clock is correct twice a day. Say what time is is without looking at a clock and you will eventually get time time right eventually. I also understand how cold reading works. It's made me a real skeptic of this subject.

With that said, I'll make clear I do believe now in the multiverse theory of Dr. Kaku. I understand that all things that happen are a result of how much total energy is contained in the Universe, and other universe would have less or more total energy creating alternate possibilities. Even free choice, or freewill, whatever one wants to call it, is an illusion. All thoughts are connected to the time we are born to the time we die. Our environments we live in throughout our lives are all created out of the sequence of events linked all the way back to the singularity.

At any rate I understand what you mean now. :-)

How do you know Michio? In the circles I am sometimes forced to run around with because of my job in Entertainment...I have found that Michio is not a very good drinker! LOL! I told him that he should get of his ass and go back to work and stop with the Celebrity Status party scene as he cannot drink shots! LOL!

We talked in the presence of some very fine dressed ladies...if you like that thing...and I asked him when he was going to dump the White Jacket! LOL! Because I had to...because of my MASSIVE EGO...ask him some questions that I personally have thought of and are my own theory...we sort of started off on the wrong foot...thing is...my Security Guy's are ALOT bigger and more experienced than his guys and who would have thought that a guy like him would even need a detail...but he gets the girls attention by some very smart demonstrations using whatever lies around a room...an orange...a pillow....a lamp...very smart.

But I had to ask him a few things as I wanted to see if he could understand my theory. He actually did and thought it was interesting...I told him I better not find out he was going to publish it and we all laughed. I call him T.V. PIMP and he calls me Mr. Black. Continued......Split Infinity

posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:11 PM

My theory was that since sub-atomic particles such as leptons, glueons and specifically QUARKS...have characteristics like in a Proton or Neutron...there is always a minimum number of Quarks and a maximum number...and they can contain any quantity between these two numbers but the Quarks constantly change in number and blink in and out of existance....right out of our Universe.

So my theory was what if...a Proton or Neutron that is part of my body or of a material has Quarks close to or at the maximum is determined by probability....and the Alternate Universal version of me has Quarks in a Lower number because in that particular divergent Universe...there is a lower probability of a specific action.

Example...I drive the same route to the Studio each day....there are infine versions of me where every possible outcome will occur...but on this particular day...there is a traffic accident by total chance and I must drive a different route....in this case this alteration of Probability causes an exchange of Quarks between one Universal Divergent Probability and another Universe that is also divergent and the Quarks exist in higher numbers based on the cration of a new branch of probability in my Universal state where I have now set into motion a completely different set of probabilities. We laughed and then I watched him poorly handle his drink. Split Infinity

posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:33 PM

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

I'm just curious, do you believe in gravitons?
I mostly believe in things we have evidence for.

There are a few things I believe where evidence isn't too strong, but in the case of graviton existence, I profess to be a graviton agnostic. I'm perfectly fine with them existing, or not existing, just show me the evidence.

Regarding claims of multiverses, I'm not agnostic...it sounds like a crock of BS to me and I don't believe in multiverse theory (additional dimensions in our own universe, maybe). Though I admit the multiverse theme makes for good science fiction, and I was a fan of the "Sliders" TV show which was based on multiverse theory, that was entertainment, not science.

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 12:23 AM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

I'm just curious, do you believe in gravitons?
I mostly believe in things we have evidence for.

There are a few things I believe where evidence isn't too strong, but in the case of graviton existence, I profess to be a graviton agnostic. I'm perfectly fine with them existing, or not existing, just show me the evidence.

Regarding claims of multiverses, I'm not agnostic...it sounds like a crock of BS to me and I don't believe in multiverse theory (additional dimensions in our own universe, maybe). Though I admit the multiverse theme makes for good science fiction, and I was a fan of the "Sliders" TV show which was based on multiverse theory, that was entertainment, not science.

Would you care to take a chance on explaining where do these Quantum Particles that are blinking in and out of existance go? Split Infinity

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 03:00 PM

There's no such thing as the Big Bang. I wager that scientists have misinterpreted their inflation theory and some of them are now catching on and considering more of a "Big Splat." See M-Theory.

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 04:32 PM

That's quite the story. I enjoyed it.

My view which I have come to conceive in my understanding of the multiverse theory which at one time I wrote off as bunk is this. First off though I'll admit, if you remember on the History boards, I made it clear I didn't dig Dr. Kaku's theories on the subject. Overtime as I became more aware of what he is saying it became more and more plausible in my view that there could be a mutivese Big Bang occurring. A Russian doll type process. This is where the mutiverse complex is expanding with each additional universe having additional total energy amounts expanding incrementally in each universe from the simplest to the most complex. Somewhere between our universe exists.

As I have said I believe predetermination is dictated by the amount of total energy contained within each universe including ours.

I believe that disappearing elementary particles could be a connection to the next universe inline behind us in having slightly less total volume of energy, and or the next one above us with in having slightly more total energy. So I do believe there is merit to your idea.

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 04:36 PM

Oh? That's quite the absolute statement on multiverse theory. I used to hold the same view. Then I thought, "Dr. Kaku is a theoretical physicist. And I am what?"

This is what I used to open my mind up to Dr. Kaku's theories. I weighed "Dr. Kaku theoretical physicist > BobE layman." And so my mind was opened.

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 04:43 PM

Originally posted by Scramjet76

There's no such thing as the Big Bang. I wager that scientists have misinterpreted their inflation theory and some of them are now catching on and considering more of a "Big Splat." See M-Theory.

Sounds wild my man
However I'll stick with the Big Bang theory and companion theories to it which enhance its concept of universe and multiverse expansion. Although the latter is considered more sci-fi than simply sci.

What came first, the sci-fi egg or the sci chicken?

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 05:32 PM

To add food for thought consider this theoretical paradox, or sci-fi idea? If our universe is accelerating in its expansion and time slows with increasing velocities is this universe going to find equilibrium with velocity vs time? We know that in order for time to function there has to be motion across the universe less than light speed, but when light speed is reached time basically slows to near zero time. If all the total energy mass in the Universe was once a primeval atom that must have been a super gravitational well if we consider that the well extends into another dimensional frame of reference. Time would not function relative to space because space as we know it would also be contained within the primeval atom. However time would function nonetheless to an extra dimensional to 3D would be universe where the primeval atom would be viewed as a solid. That is that it runs through its time cycle, its lifespan, its expansion and collapse reciprocating cycle so fast that to the higher than 3D dimensions it looks to that frame of reference to be like we view alternating current. Happening so fast relative to that, or those frames, depending on the number of higher dimensions, that all the universes seem to be ... just like a giant jar of marbles of different sizes depending on the total volume of total energy contained within them, or they are stacked together, in 3D terms, like Russian dolls which brings me to make this statement. There could be a frame of reference where the view of universe expansion where size does not matter because size is only relative to us. (no pun here trust me
) In the view of any higher than 3D frame of reference this universe is expanding within the same volume as time slows with vorticity so does the increasing rate of expansion making the accelerating universe, or even if it was decelerating from our frame of reference, it is only a dynamic we see unique to our vantage point within space/time of space/time.

A dome looks concave inside, but look convex outside.

How would one draw a sphere from being inside one not knowing what a sphere looks like from an exterior vantage point?

What the one asked to draw the sphere was shrinking inside the sphere, but the sphere stayed the same size. Would the sphere give the illusion that it was expanding? Of course! Not that this is what is occurring physically, I am simply saying things may not be what they appear to us, even on paper. However I want to make clear that instead of strings in string theory that its more like Russian dolls. Each time frame fits over the past one in this 3D analogy using Russian dolls, but I am sure it's not so pat with the complexities of higher dimensions having overlap as we only see one slice of the whole 4th dimension one slice at a "time" we call the present.

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 05:37 PM
I read the first couple of pages of posts and skipped to the end, so sorry if someone else may have brought this up already. The thing is, if the big bang is for real, we are inside of it. It is still a singularity to anything outside of it. We are expanding and a singularity at the same time. If we could stand at the edge of the bang, it wouldn't exist until it reached us, and then it would be the first moment of the bang. I've had the same thoughts about the center of the bang. I've entertained the idea that if we were to travel to the edge of the bang, at a speed faster than it expands, then we would be traveling backwards in time. If we traveled to the center, we would be traveling into the future faster than anything else in the universe. Just my own inaccurate musings I suppose.

new topics

top topics

5