It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


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



page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on May, 23 2013 @ 08:44 PM
Not sure if this has been posted already although I'm sure SOMEONE will give me the link to a similar post.

We all know that of all the fundamental forces of nature gravity and the strong force seem to be the most peculiar due to their unexplained weakness and strength respectively. Also the relationship between speed and time is a worth mentioning as time will slow down for an object relative to the speed at which the object is traveling. basic stuff.

Anyway, as of yet, the graviton particle has yet to be definitively identified, only speculated and theorized due to gravity's strength and obvious effects. I propose (probably not the first) that gravity and time are actually different dimensions of the same law manifesting itself. And since time, of course, cannot exist without it's eternal life partner space, that would make gravity, space, and time the three most basic dimensions of our (and possibly any other) universe. My reasoning is simple. The inevitabilities of gravity act much the same as time. The instabilities of a heavy atom will release protons in the form of radiation. This is of course credited to the weak force but I also give credit this the inevitability of time as all the atom's don't release simultaneously but over duration.

Rain gravitates to the earth. Humans gravitate towards death. Planets gravitate towards supernova's. The debris to black holes. Those black holes are the only thing that could very well possibly defy time, as there's no definitive proof that some of those super concentrated masses of GRAVITY don't outlast our illustrious universe.

Think of the possibilities of a multiverse. Even if this theory was true, all of the universes would ultimately share the same fate. So instead of thinking of the fifth dimension (or however you choose to name the plane of parallel earths) as an infinite branching off of possibilities, It would ultimately make more sense to think of it as an unbearably large finite whole. All Earths would share the same doom unless in one we humans discovered away to immortalize the sun. Actually all macroscopic structures devoid of intelligence all have a predestined fate if you think about it. Dark energy would be the only force grand enough to alter the destiny of these objects.

Basically I'm saying the existence of one property of the universe( like space) necessitates the appearance of the other two(for instance time and gravity) as simply as height necessitates length, and width for any particle Anyway it's just what I hypothesize to be true. Please let me know your feelings on this topic although I probably won't be able to get back to you guys until tomorrow. Peace.

P.S. also I do realize that this theory would alter the meaning of c (that's probably the biggest hole). I didn't sit around writing a bunch of equations. just pondered the possibilities in my ever curious mind.
edit on 23-5-2013 by the sloth because: typo.

edit on 23-5-2013 by the sloth because: used since instead of sense lol

posted on May, 23 2013 @ 09:24 PM
I have a somewhat differing view on time having taken time to notice it and observe it. I have taken note of the time I wake up and when I go to sleep. At the time I awake I have said, I will think of this moment when I am about to go to sleep and see if I can feel that time has passed. At the time I am about to go to sleep and I say this, I notice that no time at all has passed that I might feel. Also, I have observed the second clock on my microwave oven which I always set for one minute to reheat my coffee during the day before I drink it from the pot on the counter. As I watch it, at times I can notice that it seems to tick off faster, and at other times slower. When I am observing this, I relax myself and allow myself to "experience" the motion of time and it seems to tick off even faster. At this I can to the following conclusion that I am certain of.

What we think of as linear time, that is, from the past to the future, is not that at all but it is change. What we experience is the ebb and flow of continual change. We, call it time.

Lets say that two cars are on a road one mile long. They both start off at the same moment of "time". One is going 60mph and the other 30mph. One reaches the finish line in one minute, and the other in two. What we saw here was that one car went through time faster than the other. The finish line really was the future and the first car going 60mph reached the future first. And what made that happen was the rate of continual change (speed of change of position). Time therefore is merely change of position.

I said to myself, I fly lives but a few weeks, but in his world everything is super fast. But to him it is not because he simply does much more in less times (speed of positional change). Could it be that I change slower so I perceive his world but a brief moment where he sees mine as near eternal by comparison?

The theory of (space-time) is correct. But time is not a dimension, it is the proof of positional change. So long as the universe is in continual expansion there will be change. And as long as we can move our position within in there will be change. And change is time.

This is also exciting because this would also mean that in theory, we could reverse the change and also speed up the change which is to effect the change. In other words, we could time travel, but I like to call it positional change travel.

Anyway, think of the concept and do the experiments I did and you will be able to sense the change and it's speed as well.

posted on May, 23 2013 @ 09:25 PM
I found out that not believing in everything I read in science gets me past most of its obstacles, because they are merely descriptions of the way scientists attempt to perceive the measurable universe according to the technologies they have on hand. Whatever for that piddling over what's right and wrong there. Scalar physics and scalar field theory seems to be a good place to prove how things are light or heavy when they are nearer or farther. The Lorentz transformation idea seems to explain what you're looking for best in the physics that "we all know". Imagine what we will all know in a hundred years from now.

Atomic "releasing" is what gives science the perception of time. That's why they have caesium clocks. Maybe they do all release at the same time, and only through the entanglement of what we consider to be a homogenous place called the universe it only appears that it's happening gradually. Maybe it all already happened and our perception is just now catching up to it. You're going to need that to face the faster-than-light ideas.

Two things I've found out is that gravity is one of those things that gets in my way of liking physics, mostly because of the disciples-of-gravity, those who can't help but believe we couldn't exist without it. It's a personal joke when I get angry at gravity when something falls where I don't want it to; if only we could master spintronics and maybe some quantum locking, this falling down thing could be mediated. I prefer the belief of a complex electromagnetic or other entanglement over gravity. Much like I don't believe in calories in dieting, but if someone could advance to teach about joules and metabolism, I might like that.

The second of the two things I don't like is that light is constant. Light wasn't established working in paces of 10 to match our math ways of describing things. I know we really really want to say it's constant but I think if we are ever to get over this lightspeed thing we will have to admit to ourselves that there is no such thing as zero in the universe, so every tenth place in our math, it's a mistake. I even went so far as to invent a digit to get over the zero problem with a zero with a dot in the middle, naming it after myself of course.
C is a c-ya-later idea. When it gets to manifold space, it's like C to the fifth power or more, how to deal with that?

Try to remember you're running in the same science vehicle since Newton with the gravity stuff. It might be a temporary space filler until the good stuff comes around.
edit on 23-5-2013 by Sandalphon because: pete and repete

posted on May, 23 2013 @ 09:47 PM

Originally posted by Fromabove
Lets say that two cars are on a road one mile long. They both start off at the same moment of "time". One is going 60mph and the other 30mph. One reaches the finish line in one minute, and the other in two. What we saw here was that one car went through time faster than the other. The finish line really was the future and the first car going 60mph reached the future first. And what made that happen was the rate of continual change (speed of change of position). Time therefore is merely change of position.

See there is so much unaccounted for in that picture. And my brain overheats trying to get over the details.
Where is the road? Well it's going to be in a land with miles. Was it an uphill road or a downhill road, or a twisty road or a straight road?
How many lanes are on the road?
Is it asphalt or concrete or a dirt or a brick road?
What happened to the other road parts before and after the mile?
What are the two cars? How many drivers do they have?
What is the speed limit of the road? If they are going over the speed limit, are there any cops nearby?
Why are they on the road?
Why did they go two different speeds?
How do we know there weren't stop sticks in the road? Or other obstacles?
What kind of fuel were they on?

And this is why I hate the way the big professors teach the little students, making little students look retarded because they don't eat the junk science designed for the public. It's too simple. Makes me cry.

I need the hard stuff first, and this little vehicle thing will make sense later.

But that's how these theories get broken in half. On assumptions. That it's maybe a straight road with no obstacles, that they both started at a start line of some kind, that none of them changed gears during the drive, none of them went off the road to splash through mud puddles or skid some donuts in a parking lot. The road isn't time - it's a road, stuck on a planet. That in planck length progression, itty bit by itty bit, the magnetically connected globs of metal with the drivers inside eventuated themselves through some heaves against the environment, from start to end. So maybe one of the cars - the slow one, for irony - had a John Titor time machine box in it, traveled to the 1980s for an IBM computer and then came back to where it was and continued going as normal.

Check the odometers.

I'm not derailing a thread but I'm playing in the sandbox.

posted on May, 23 2013 @ 11:13 PM
Ill tell you whats really weird. I was just about to make a thread containing the following information. I.changed my mind though.

The universe is well over 99% empty space. This is not just a macrocosmic fact, but also applies to the microcosmos. Your own body is mostly just space. Well im here to propose that it really contains only space, and that the material you believe is there is really a product of observation by an immaterial being.

The only reason you see material objects is because of the nature of intelligent observation creating relativity. Intelligence creates relativity just by its nature. Everything seen depends on what you are to determine how it is seen. My point is, you only see material because of your relative position within the framework of infinte geometric possibility. In other words, you see material where your geometric reference is larger than the geometric observation. The smaller you get, the more space you see. When you reach the smallest possible size, space is all there is. None of this paragraph suggests that intelligence creates matter, but only that it creates relativity.

The closest application of the principal of.relativity to the subject at hand is einsteins theory of relativity. It suggests that light has a speed limit and is not subject to observation. If you and an object were to travel at the same speed, the object would appear to stand still. As you approach the speed of light, the light speed remains constant relative to you. You can never observe yourself to match its speed in three dimensions. If you make a comparison in time, though, you can match the speed it used to be going before you started moving.

Intelligence creates relativity and relativity determines whether you see space or matter. Its not that youre looking at a material object, its that youre looking into a contraction of.observable space. You are looking at a smaller geometric possibility than your eyes can interpret, so your eyes create an image of material.

An atom consists of mostly space. It has protons, neutrons, and electrons. Each of these consist of mostly space. Each of the consist of even smaller particles which consist of.mostly space. The particles arent there. What is there is a predefined area of contracting or expanding space. Space is a "fabric". Its completely empty but ifinite in geometric possibility. Insert an observer, and the possibilities become actualized. The emptiness is given definition.

posted on May, 23 2013 @ 11:22 PM
A lot to digest there and will in pun intended..I have worked out that 45 minutes of sleep time equates to 5 mins of normal waking time..

posted on May, 24 2013 @ 08:07 AM
reply to post by Sandalphon

The cars represent two separate but equal starting points. The road is the medium through which they traverse be it empty space (though space is not really empty at all), or water, gas, etc. The mile is the period of change. Speed is the factor in this scenario where the faster you go, the quicker you will move through time. This has been proven by the Einstein equation of near light speed travel. The faster car, going faster through the change (period we call time) will arrive in the future first, and the slower second.

The distance between each change IS time as we perceive it to be. A second on a time clock is only the spacial distance between the first click and the next measured by a constant rhythm. The same hold true for the hour, the day, the year and so on. The space is the distance between each moment of change.

To use the word time is really not a truism because time as such does not really exist at all, only positional change. And this change goes on even in the atomic fabric of the universe, and quite possible in the quantum level as well. And we are subject to the perception of positional change because we are moving with the stars and universe in an unwinding dance of change through expansion. We are in fact continually within change.

They called the fabric of the universe "space-time" and this is a correct word. They are the same thing. More accurate would be "space-change". If you run down the road and I see you do it, believe it or not, you moved through space time faster than I. But because we are relative to the Earth and it's positional change around the Sun, I can relate to your change in real time. To give you the best example, when astronauts in Skylab, and on a certain jet that carried cesium atomic clocks compared the time passing from their point relative to those on the Earth, they saw they there was a bit of time displacement of so many nanoseconds or so. Yet, the whole time they were seen from earth and communicating with those who were earthbound, even though there was a time displacement.

If the point of reference for each car were a future point of positional change, and one car going twice as fast gets to the future first, he will wait there in the future for the one going slower to arrive, and he will have time to do things in the future while he awaits his buddy in the past to catch up. This is no different than going at near light speed to a nearby star and coming back so that four years has passed on the earth, yet only days for the star traveler. The only difference in this is that when he slow down to normal positional change, but he and the past are flowing at the same speed and he will never see the past catch up to him. It's like being on a highway following the car ahead at 60mph with only a car space between you. relative to each other, your not moving at all. But to the flow of positional change around you, both of you are flowing at the same rate of change relative to the world around you.

So, if I were to make a time machine, all I would need to do is slow the rate of atomic speed, or increase it. I would need to do so within a contained bubble that is not relative to the world around me. When I increase the change of the atoms where I am slower, the world around me will speed up. When I slow the change where I am in the atoms the world around me will speed up. It would be the same as two cars going side by side down the highway at 60mph in each lane. If I slow down he speeds away ahead of me into the future destination, and if I speed up he fades away into the past of where I had been.

Is this a lot to grasp, yes. I know it will burn out a few fuses but that's ok. In a weird sort of way, the old movie called "Time Machine" mimics what I'm talking about. When he increases speed, he goes forward in positional change, and if slowed, the world goes faster. So he doesn't really go back in time at all, but his going slower allows for the past that is changing to catch up with him. As if when I take my foot off the accelerator and put in on the brake, I slow, and the other guy catches up to me. But all i did was either speed up or slow my positional change. Time is not linear but everywhere all at once in all three positions, past, present, and future. It's called appropriately, "space-time"

posted on May, 24 2013 @ 03:04 PM
gavity and accelerationThank you for your insightful reply. I agree wholeheartedly that space-change would be more apt name for c than space time. I suppose the ever expanding universe is what makes change/time even possible at all.

I found your second description of the two cars on the freeway going at the same speed refreshing. A nice simple visual for comparing the fluctuations in relativity to real time occurrences. I've always found the slowed rate of change at substantially higher speeds odd; as if the universe were compensating for the loss of stability for the object in question.

I found a really good short video on speed and acceleration that conveys what I should've added in the first post. It explains well the nearly indistinguishable features of acceleration and gravity.


posted on May, 24 2013 @ 07:39 PM
reply to post by the sloth

Excellent video. Thanks for posting it.

posted on May, 24 2013 @ 08:48 PM
reply to post by Fromabove

Thanks. I also dig what you said about the fly. the same way that particles move extra fast at microscopic levels, I think smaller creatures experience life in slow motion. Thats probably why flys seem to know we're about to swat them before we do lol.
edit on 24-5-2013 by the sloth because: typo.

posted on May, 24 2013 @ 09:22 PM
reply to post by smithjustinb

Very profound smith. although gravity connects all solid objects in the universe it's relevance seems to evaporate completely at subatomic levels. unless of course one can prove the connection between gravity and the other three forces of nature. naturally that's what physicist have been attempting to do since einstein. but heck man, maybe you're right. since gravity (one of the most basic indicators of reality) loses it's relevance at subatomic levels, perhaps reality itself loses it's relevance as well. but there's always the possibility that gravity IS the manifestation of all the other forces combined. who knows.

posted on May, 25 2013 @ 07:23 AM
I think of an object such as a planet or even things smaller as displacing space-time like a knot in the string. The strings get pulled tighter and tighter so that objects are not attracted by gravity but by the curvature of the fabric of space-time. Without matter in the universe I believe the thing we refer to as gravity would not be detectable. And if this is true than space-time has ripples and folds in it like cloth in the wind and we should be able to detect such things. But it would be an error to call them gravity waves. And perhaps some of these ripples could alter what we think of as time but in reality is only positional change.

posted on May, 25 2013 @ 07:43 AM
I love threads like this. Keeps me grounded... in fantasy. Armchair physicists discussing stuff freely and openly with fear. Love it!
My thoughts: reality isn't... perception is everything. Which is consciousness. And what is that? Well, I believe its a quantum-physical effect, Yes there is chemical and electrical phenomena too, but that thing that is 'self' must be a quantum effect.
e=mc2; does matter exist? or is it all energy? Just measured (perceived) as matter/particles.
Would love to be in a pub somewhere with you all talking about this.
And while I ponder gravity, its magnetism that occupies my thoughts. If Einstein was right as gravity is a warping of time/space, how does magnetism work? Does gravity pass through everything or is there a gravity shield, like a Faraday cage? Its those questions I want to read about in science journals. Or the pub. My Shout. Where is the next meeting?

posted on May, 25 2013 @ 08:28 AM
Don't think time exists. Illusion man created to justify existence

posted on May, 25 2013 @ 09:36 PM
reply to post by hmmmbeer

Magnetism works in the atom world like your hand would if it were swirling water in a bathtub. Magnetism pulls on electrons within certain metals where they are "loosely" joined around the atom. It doesn't happen with brass or other metals. Magnets have filed lines that are caused by the polar alignment of atoms within the metal. To me, magnetism differs little from gravity because both effect certain attributes of times-space. One is electrical displacement and the other is spacial or "positional" displacement.

As for shielding gravity, it might be possible to do so in the same way as a balloon displaces air around it with air within it. Since gravity is the result of warping space-time inward, electromagnet frequency should cause those lines to bend back outward, making you disappear within the space-time position. Repulsive force would cause the field lines (lets call them that) of gravity to straighten out and not curve inward towards the object in question, which is you, or whoever is within the bubble.

edit on 25-5-2013 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 26 2013 @ 04:20 PM
reply to post by Fromabove

Thanks. I do understand the concepts and behaviour of magnetism, but what exactly causes the forces. Is it axion-axion interactions? I am more amazed at the repulsive ability, especially because no other force has it. You kinda mention repulsive force in terms of gravity... is there a picture somewhere describing what you mean - having trouble visualising it.

Also, any thoughts on consciousness? Can it be anything but a controlled quantum effect?

posted on May, 26 2013 @ 05:47 PM
As the infinite expanse of space is imploding down and inward toward the one infinitesimal Singularity, that is engaged in infinite velocity and angular diversity trajectory, at the expanse is time as all the future, at the Singularity is time that is all the past. The Universe exists somewhere between those two infinite poles. Something is existing in that time current stream is impacted causing a disturbance (much like a stick in the river). This disturbance is best observed as gravity but the harmonics "ringing out" of this impact are all the other characteristics of particles and their more complex formations such as atoms, molecules, etc. It is my opinion at this time I think it is consciousness, but I think I'm wrong or at least incomplete.

Gravity is always 360x360 down and inward just like the time current flow is. Gravity is time (current) impacting this whatever-it-is (consciousness?). I am implying that all particles are the result of consciousness being present as gravity does not exist without particles as either the source or recipient of those effects.

Space is time that is non-kinetic, time is space that is kinetic. Space and time interchange the characteristic of being either kinetic or non-kinetic as a cosmological constant. The Universe and its "contents" are a distortion in the perfection of the implosion from infinite expanse (pure space) down and inward toward the infinitely kinetic, One infinitesimal Singularity (pure time).

Each of us impresses an envelope in this stream where we dwell now and after our deaths. Here and now as space dwellers, after our deaths as time dwellers, but inside our space envelope we recorded while alive.

I apologize for ranting and thinking "out loud" publically. But there is This that I see and cannot stop seeing It. I haven't slept well in decades and I wouldn't have it any other way. As if I had a choice.

posted on May, 27 2013 @ 02:52 AM
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.

posted on May, 27 2013 @ 05:35 AM
Yep this is great. You would never find discussions like this on a proper scientific forum - everyone is too afraid of being different to throw crazy ideas out there.
I am both very practical and wonder in awe at the 'cosmic' nature of some of the ideas posted here, yet believe deep inside that what science purports to 'know' as fact is generally wrong or incomplete when it comes to topics like this. Lots of high maths and speculation, but very little absolute truth.

I ponder from the basics - quarks, electrons, atoms through to the fate of the universe, and am unfulfilled by current science. Probably my biggest current conundrum is consciousness - what is it really? Because there is no reality without perception, which requires consciousness. The quantum physical world, if its the correct model, makes me more at ease. Doesn't help explain exactly what causes gravity or magnetism, but at least provides a possible foundation.
I ponder whether matter really exists, or if matter is actually a form of energy (and I mean quarks, electrons etc not the chair you sit on). String theory gives me a headache.
Will the universe collapse into a big crunch, followed by another big bang? Or will another 2 'branes' touch and cause another universe? Is time travel really possible? I love black holes. I think people struggle at the ends of the scales - the really really small and really really big. Or the slow and fast, short and long. Common sense can not be used, and analogies will be out of scale. They become numbers without meaning. A black hole is so massive that its escape velocity is > speed of light. That freaks me out! Did nature f&ck up? Did it make light a tad too slow? Did it matter/energy too dense? Wow.
If anyone can explain in detail how magnetism works I would be forever grateful.

posted on May, 27 2013 @ 07:02 AM

Originally posted by hmmmbeer
reply to post by Fromabove

Thanks. I do understand the concepts and behaviour of magnetism, but what exactly causes the forces. Is it axion-axion interactions? I am more amazed at the repulsive ability, especially because no other force has it. You kinda mention repulsive force in terms of gravity... is there a picture somewhere describing what you mean - having trouble visualising it.

Also, any thoughts on consciousness? Can it be anything but a controlled quantum effect?

Gravity and magnetism are similar in that they exert a force upon matter. Both have to do with bending the space-time fabric. Magnetism can only do this in a limited way and only upon loose holding electrons in orbit around atoms in certain metals. Gravity is merely the bending of space-time due to the presence of matter. The repulsive force is dark energy which continually expands the universe. The repulsive force of Magnetism when it comes into a similar pole of magnetism works the same way. This is because space-time close to the magnet is forced to align in such a way to repel.

The area around a planet curves space-time in almost the same way that a magnet does. But what is happening is not attraction or repulsion, what is happening is that a void is created and the force of pressure from expansion is pushing whatever object near it towards it's most center point where matter is most concentrated. It would be like if I dug a hole and then rolled a ball across it. It falls into the hole because there is nothing to prevent it, not because the hole sucked it in.

Now, if I could by electromagnetism create a repulsive counter-force that could bend the space-time (lets call it lines of force) back to where it would be if my presence were not occupying that spot of space-time, I should not be under the influence of the effect we call gravity. In other words, I shouldn't fall into the hole, the void created by the presence of the Earth in space-time. I should be able to float away the same as I would if I pushed my boat away from the dock, except that same effect would be three dimensional.

Conscience thought does have an effect on space-time, that has been proven by the "double slit" experiment. Observation of the experiment changed the nature and behavior of the outcome. To what extent this has on effecting any change in space-time is not presently known. The question would be, could we mentally create a bubble in space-time and travel through time and space by conscious thought. And do we already do this and simply refer to it as memories. For instance, let's say you could think of yourself as being in a place and time last year. Are we not actually there in the present tense occupying the same space and time, only because it is set in our memory we only do that which we remember. But, if in my thought I attempt to change the event in any way such as sitting instead of standing, or it raining instead of being clear, doesn't it resist the change ? yes, and you can feel it. You feel it because it is real to you. But let's say you are strong enough to change what you remember, the question is, will it become reality and end up being the actual past because it was changed. Experiments on this were actually done to see if the past could be revisited and changed using consciousness alone. Nothing conclusive ever came from it because if you could change the past you would never know it had been changed. The only one who would know would be that one person, you. So, to the extent you could altar your own past, that would be the question. We would need a machine that could greatly amplify conscious thought to do it effectively.

Bottom line, at the quantum level, anything is quite possible.
edit on 27-5-2013 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in