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 - the Real Zero-Point Energy, Not Virtual Particles!

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


Well you mention gravity and space-time curvature... what does gravity have to do with the curvature of space?




Does this imply space-time is something material/physical?


Yes.


Another mysterious thing is light, and how it travels at all, the description of it being an oscillating E and B field, I dont get how the energy is conserved in a vacuum, how it can travel so far and long, without hitting particles and stuff.. I dont get how if its an oscillating E and B field how that even works or makes sense, being that light contains no charge.


Electric and magnetic fields exist everywhere without requiring a charge in the specific location, but they interact with charges. Light does travel far and long and hit and interact with particles if the particles are charged. If it is a 'vacuum' there are no (real) particles to hit.




posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


I'm credited in a quote that does not belong to me at the bottom...of your post.

"Another mysterious thing is light, and how it travels at all, the description of it being an oscillating E and B field, I dont get how the energy is conserved in a vacuum, how it can travel so far and long, without hitting particles and stuff.. I dont get how if its an oscillating E and B field how that even works or makes sense, being that light contains no charge."

please fix.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


No, you're not. Your name only appears as mbkennel quoted Fungi's post which was a reply to you.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


My apologies I meant to make a thread here in the Science forum and accidentally posted it in the Space exploration forum instead...

Having to field off all of those in coming replies...made me lose place of my focus in both forums; so my apologies to yourself and the op for the accidental derail.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


No worries. Just explaining what happened. I've been there myself before wondering why my name was attached to some post I never made.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Fungi, unless you seperate the 2 entities space and time, you will remain confused.
Time existed b4 space was born.


Did the time of the universe/materials of the universe/space of the universe exist before the universe was born?

Do you believe in the big bang model?

Time and point mass existed but no space.
Big bang = yes


first of all point mass is the most ridiculous concept irrationally conceivable. I have never heard a physicist who talks about that area of the big bang theory explain how that is possible, for all the mass and energy of the universe to be dimensionless and size-less.

Anyway, ok so time existed... and all the mass and energy of the universe is a single point is doing nothing.... doing nothing... doing nothing... time is still existing.... mass is still doing nothing.... ok NOW... big bang happens... this is the beginning of this new adventure of a universes time, and space.... thus this moment the point inflated was the beginning of this arrow of cosmological time (and space).. so yes, maybe God was setting everything right, getting everything in order (all in his time, the time you are mentioning that existed),,, but as for all the energy/matter and distance between them, and their relative energy levels and velocities, the big bang was the beginning of the clock,.. that energy was born at that moment... went from 0.0.0.0.0.0 to 1..2...3...4...5..6 ..... all the way to "14 billion years"...

So that is the reason it is said "time began" at the moment of the big bang... its that the total clock of this system began there... but then the tricky part is that because of energy levels and velocity and orbits and life spans of particles and entropy,, time is relative..relative to each particle and macro structures location in accordance to a general vector of space.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

Electric and magnetic fields exist everywhere without requiring a charge in the specific location, but they interact with charges. Light does travel far and long and hit and interact with particles if the particles are charged. If it is a 'vacuum' there are no (real) particles to hit.


How do electric and magnetic fields exist everywhere without requiring a charge in the specific location? Literally every point in space is electromagnetic field lines from one side of the universe to the other? This is my main inquiry, I know the answer is photons, but how does one charge by changing velocity in a vacuum, send a photon to another at a distance? Is this is what you mean by field; there is a field everywhere,, and when things are moving constantly and smoothly the field is like still water, but when a particle in that field moves in contrast to its previously steady establishment, this "jolts" that still 'water', and it imprints the frequency of its oscillation in the field (which can then be 'slowed down' by other charged particles in the area? like how in a medium sound wave will eventually die out because it loses energy, will eventually the photon come in contact with enough charged particles that the original energy of the photon is 'dampened' and the shaken field is restored to equilibrium?.. this question might be relevant here;how long on average does an electron stay excited after recieving photon? (depend on photon energy?) if there were 100 atoms in a row and the first one got hit with a photon, can it theoretically pass on that original photon without losing any of the original energy to each subsequent atom, if they were in a vacuum would it be like a perfect newton's cradle?) Does this mean the vacuum is a superconductor since it can carry em radiation without resistance?
edit on 26-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Fungi, unless you seperate the 2 entities space and time, you will remain confused.
Time existed b4 space was born.


Did the time of the universe/materials of the universe/space of the universe exist before the universe was born?

Do you believe in the big bang model?

Time and point mass existed but no space.
Big bang = yes


How long did this point mass exist before it went bang?

From our perspective / understanding / frame of ref. infinitely long



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 
No our time did not begin at the big bang.
This assumption is the cause of much confusion among physicists.
Again from our perspective / frame of ref. age of universe may well be
close to 28 billion years


edit on 26-2-2013 by Angelic Resurrection because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


So the finite existence of the point mass was infinitely long? Seriously?



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


So the finite existence of the point mass was infinitely long? Seriously?

From our perspective yes



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


So the finite existence of the point mass was infinitely long? Seriously?

From our perspective yes


What does that mean? From our perspective that is illogical. Please explain.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


From our perspective: galaxies are moving away from our galaxy; when all galaxies are moving away from each other at the same rate for the most part...at least that's the current accept theory in an expanding universe...
edit on 27-2-2013 by BigBrotherDarkness because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


Yes, I guess it is. What does it have to do with my question though. No galaxies before the "bang".

I'm questioning the logic of a infinitely long existent point mass whose existence was finite.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


Yes, I guess it is. What does it have to do with my question though. No galaxies before the "bang".

I'm questioning the logic of a infinitely long existent point mass whose existence was finite.

Time ticked away then ( b4 the big bang ) at infinite rate so form our perspective, finite existance is kind of moot.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by ImaFungi
 
No our time did not begin at the big bang.
This assumption is the cause of much confusion among physicists.
Again from our perspective / frame of ref. age of universe may well be
close to 28 billion years


edit on 26-2-2013 by Angelic Resurrection because: (no reason given)


OK so age of the universe may be 28 billion years it may be 50 trillion years... but billions and trillions of years are durations of time... a finite duration of time implies the beginning of the measuring of that duration. If I count to ten seconds with 1 second in between each second, this duration of 10 seconds had a beginning of time, and spanned a span of time. If we count to 28 billion years, this implies that the counting (the time/duration) began at a ...time.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi


OK so age of the universe may be 28 billion years it may be 50 trillion years... but billions and trillions of years are durations of time... a finite duration of time implies the beginning of the measuring of that duration. If I count to ten seconds with 1 second in between each second, this duration of 10 seconds had a beginning of time, and spanned a span of time. If we count to 28 billion years, this implies that the counting (the time/duration) began at a ...time.


No close to 28 billion years.
Counting back Birth of our visible unverse = 14 Billion Yrs
Birth of Invisible Universe = Maybe 14 Billion Yrs

So Total Approv 28 billion yrs from big bang



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


Still trying to make sense out of your answers. It wouldn't hurt if you would just give answers that make sense. Anyway, what do you mean invisible universe? Why back up the bang 14 bil years? What does this accomplish?



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 

Its my theory / hypotheses that, The first 14 billion years approx. ( invisible universe ) were reqd for time to slow down to our present rate of flow, so that em wave could propagate and give birth to our visible universe


edit on 28-2-2013 by Angelic Resurrection because: typos



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


Yes, I guess it is. What does it have to do with my question though. No galaxies before the "bang".

I'm questioning the logic of a infinitely long existent point mass whose existence was finite.

Time ticked away then ( b4 the big bang ) at infinite rate so form our perspective, finite existance is kind of moot.

No it's not moot. It's finite existence, among other things, prevents it from being infinitely old. The rate of time is irrelevant.

Did this point mass create itself at some point in time?




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join