Time&Gravity

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 27 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by the sloth
 


Very interesting post... I once had an opportunity to meet Steven Hawking, and I asked him if he believed we'd find a way to create anti-gravity. His answer was "I don't believe in anti-gravity because that would mean there would also be time travel, and I have never met someone from the future."

Your post, whether true or not, makes sense in my opinion.




posted on May, 27 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by the sloth
reply to post by tkwasny
 


Thank you for ranting. I've often felt that since gravity appears to pull inwards, that time (or positional change if you will) must be working inwards as well. Perhaps, like I believe you somewhat stated, this is due to an expansion and simultaneous implosion of the universe. Consider for a moment (and this is going to sound ludicrous, but just indulge me) a universe in which the laws of electromagnetism, strong, and weak were the same as ours, except matter repelled the space-time fabric instead of drawing it in. So instead of matter being drawn to matter it would instead tend to repel it. I imagine the universe would be mostly gas, dust and liquids. I'm not sure what the ratio of empty space to matter is exactly in the universe, but I'm betting that in such a world there world be a noble attempt by every atom and molecule to fill every void in the cosmos. The only kinds of attractions going on would be large scale electromagnetic attractions. At this point, that universe would be behaving macroscopically as our universe behaves microscopically. I'm not sure how accurate of a description that was for this preposterous world. I've never postulated anything so ridiculous before. I'm merely trying to grasp a higher understanding of gravity by throwing abstract scenarios about I suppose.


That is this "other Universe" that I think might exist. Our Universe exists just after the present (the string of infinitesimal duration "now" instances) then rings out into the past. The other Universe is on the other side of the instances of the present. Existence for the conscious occupants in that Universe rings IN until it strikes just before the present instances.

I like your thinking patterns. I'll be spending some quiet time for a long while forming a vision of your presentation from here.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by lifestudent
 


Thank you. That's beyond cool that you met Hawking and had such a conversation. I'm honored by your reply. The suggestion that my assertions could already be recognized by such an influential figure has really made my afternoon.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by lifestudent
reply to post by the sloth
 


Very interesting post... I once had an opportunity to meet Steven Hawking, and I asked him if he believed we'd find a way to create anti-gravity. His answer was "I don't believe in anti-gravity because that would mean there would also be time travel, and I have never met someone from the future."

Your post, whether true or not, makes sense in my opinion.


What is amazing is that Stephen Hawking actually believes in gravity. There is only space-time displacement causing a curvature in the area around any mass. It is still refered to as gravity but there is no real force there at all, and if it were not for the presence of a mass such as a planet, moon, or even a grain of sand, space-time would not be displaced creating a void in which other objects near by would simply start to fall into.

As far as him never meeting someone from the future, so that means he can't believe in time travel is like saying I've never been to the south pole so it doesn't exist. I think Einstein was more correct.




edit on 28-5-2013 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
(space + time) * (mass + force) = gravity : the result of space/time and mass/force is gravity.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove

Originally posted by lifestudent
reply to post by the sloth
 


Very interesting post... I once had an opportunity to meet Steven Hawking, and I asked him if he believed we'd find a way to create anti-gravity. His answer was "I don't believe in anti-gravity because that would mean there would also be time travel, and I have never met someone from the future."

Your post, whether true or not, makes sense in my opinion.


What is amazing is that Stephen Hawking actually believes in gravity. There is only space-time displacement causing a curvature in the area around any mass. It is still refered to as gravity but there is no real force there at all, and if it were not for the presence of a mass such as a planet, moon, or even a grain of sand, space-time would not be displaced creating a void in which other objects near by would simply start to fall into.

As far as him never meeting someone from the future, so that means he can't believe in time travel is like saying I've never been to the south pole so it doesn't exist. I think Einstein was more correct.




edit on 28-5-2013 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)


in order to time travel you need anti gravity which goes against basic mechanics.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Movement in space is an action. When you walk on the earth, you exert an equal and opposite force on it. Movement in time is an action. The force was applied long ago, but we have maintained inertia. So what is the equal and opposite force of us moving through time?

Even when at rest in three dimensions, youre still moving forward in the 4th, time. There has to be something fueling this movement. We move forward through time at a constany value, so we have not been acted on by another force. If we were to change the rate of our movement through time, would we notice any difference? Just like with speed, you dont feel anything but the acceleration. You feel the gravity. Is time's equal and opposite reaction gravity? Time dilation occurs during acceleration. Your experience of gravity is proportional to your experience of time.

On earth, we are accelerating downward (earth inwards) at all times. We are constantly moving forward through time. Things here now, will be gone the next moment as we accelerate inward through ourselves and downward through the earth into the future. Consciousness is where gravity and time meet to wave goodbye to the past. We are equally subject to both forces. As we are pulled towards the center of the earth, we emerge to create time.

By gravity, we are accelerating inward to something that is accelerating inward. If the innermost portion of this system were to come to a stop, everything else would stop, and there would be no gravity. We are accelerating inward and as we do, we are leaving a time behind. We are moving to the future. If we werent here to observe, the energy equivalence of gravity and time would not be equal. We have to exist to balance the equation.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by raj10463
(space + time) * (mass + force) = gravity : the result of space/time and mass/force is gravity.


The expansion of the universe is what some mistakenly credit to dark energy. Gravity is also mistaken as a force. However it is not a force because what is thought of as gravity is not that at all. Space-time expands evenly on all sides in three dimensions all at once. What matter is in the equation, space-time curves around it, bending it and leaving avoid where matter is centered. Other mass coming upon another mass will fall into the void because space-time has pushed it into it by mere expansion. Gravity then is the absence of force.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by raj10463

Originally posted by Fromabove

Originally posted by lifestudent
reply to post by the sloth
 


Very interesting post... I once had an opportunity to meet Steven Hawking, and I asked him if he believed we'd find a way to create anti-gravity. His answer was "I don't believe in anti-gravity because that would mean there would also be time travel, and I have never met someone from the future."

Your post, whether true or not, makes sense in my opinion.


What is amazing is that Stephen Hawking actually believes in gravity. There is only space-time displacement causing a curvature in the area around any mass. It is still refered to as gravity but there is no real force there at all, and if it were not for the presence of a mass such as a planet, moon, or even a grain of sand, space-time would not be displaced creating a void in which other objects near by would simply start to fall into.

As far as him never meeting someone from the future, so that means he can't believe in time travel is like saying I've never been to the south pole so it doesn't exist. I think Einstein was more correct.




edit on 28-5-2013 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)


in order to time travel you need anti gravity which goes against basic mechanics.



In order to time travel to the past, you would have to be in a bubble that allows space-time to expand around you but not effect you. You have to be going slower than the universe around you. To travel to the future you would have to go faster than the universe around you is expanding, so going near light speed would help that happen for you. Gravity is not needed. Anti-gravity does not exist really. You could however prevent yourself from falling into the void created by the presence of matter (planet etc.) by electromagnetism, which is a real force that would prevent space-time from pushing you along like a piece of drift wood in the river.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 

Space is crazy, because for it to exist there must be a repulsive force in direct proportion to an attractive one, in order for there to BE space between things or apparent manifestation of things.

Without this balance everything would be glued together and there wouldn't be any space at all, just one infinitely dense point in the midst of nothing. In this way space is directly related to both time, and gravity. Beyond that I'd have to get a couple of physics degrees and become a super brilliant mathematician to properly explain, but it's common sense that time, space, and gravity are intimately related.

But it seems to me that there's a missing piece in the puzzle here, which would be anti-gravity or the very "stuff" of space which creates space and makes space possible.

If UFO's come here from other planets in the universe, they do not travel through space, no they make the space shrink to nothing or to a thin membrane because they have the laws of physics involving anti-gravity (eliminate the repulsive force, eliminate the space), which also comes in handy when you get to your host planet for showing off by doing right angle turns at 1000's of miles per hour and demonstrating in the process that both gravity and inertial forces have been completely mastered, so that's another one to consider is the idea of inertial fields, and how those might interact with anti-gravity and electro-magnetic phenomenon (colored lights?). Someday we'll figure it out, which is probably why so many have been buzzing around here, as a quarantine or a blockade because we're quite obviously not ready for the stars... not quite there yet one might say, whether self admittedly and self deprecatingly, from a human perspective, or from the outside looking in from an alien POV.


edit on 28-5-2013 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   
For those that believe that there is actually gravity and not a void caused by matter, let me ask this one question and see how it goes.

In my hypothetical we have an air bubble underwater, and lets say is is in the middle of the ocean near the top just under the water. Hypothetically it is one inch across. Now, lets descend, and lets call that descent "expansion" because as we go down more water is surrounding the bubble. At 500 feet, the bubble of air is now only 1/4 of an inch across even though it holds the same mass. And if we go down in the expanse to 1000 feet it is now but a mere dot of an air bubble.

Now, would you say that the gravity of the air held the bubble together at the beginning ? And as the expanse of going deeper where the bubble became smaller, was it because of the density of the bubble increasing the gravitational effect ? The answer of course is no. What is happening is that the water is bearing down on all points of the bubble, and the bubble is less dense than the ocean it is contained in. The bubble is a void even though it has mass. It is no different from the mass of the Earth where the force of the expansion is pushing on it as well as everything else in the universe.

This hypothetical does not take into account the electrical side of the universe and is another subject altogether. There is a positive and negative nature to all things, but the expansion is balanced, it is neutral. And this is where electro-magnetism becomes important to space travel and time travel.




edit on 29-5-2013 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
As far as him never meeting someone from the future, so that means he can't believe in time travel is like saying I've never been to the south pole so it doesn't exist. I think Einstein was more correct.


On the issue of not meeting someone from the future. I first thought about that as fallacious, but then considered further... Given useful time travel and effectively infinite time (even if only some billions of years), either we are really an uninteresting blip of a species that never achieved it and weren't interesting to anyone who did, which I suspect is not true, or we would have an opportunity to be visited by more time tourists than our population.

The fact that across his lifetime in this day of technological advancement, one of the most prominent physicists has not been visited or heard about a visit by one being from the future who explained anything does reduce the chance of time travel, at least controllable time travel, existing in my opinion.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by lifestudent
 


The same could have held true for before atoms were discovered, the world was discovered to be round and not flat etc.

An experiment was done where two twins, one in the old Skylab space station and one on Earth, each had a precise time clock set exactly the same. They were atomic clocks. The one in the space station stayed there for some time ans then returned to Earth. His clock had lost a few seconds of time. Einstein claimed that the curvature of space time around a large body such as a planet or star would slow time. It was proven to be true.

But the question would be, when the space traveler returned to earth. Did he travel into the future ? Or, when the twin on Earth met his brother and saw that his clock was a few seconds behind, was he indeed meeting someone from the past? The time displacement was real and the result was accurate. Both were going through time at different speeds except that when they were together on the Earth, time resumed a speed to both of them.

So time travel has already been proven. Stephen Hawking hasn't met anyone from the past or future, but then why should he? If that was the only reason to say that it's not probable that time travel can be done, then one has to doubt him as a credible scientist.




edit on 30-5-2013 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join