north

Time does not require energy, space (distance) does not require energy.

 

Relativity is NOT about human observers,

Muons in the upper atmosphere have a different decay time than those that are stationary because they are moving at relativistic speeds.

you failed to mention what the difference in the decay time is between the muons in the upper atmosphere and those muons that are stationary

fill me in

Hummm, not sure about that Klaynos. What about drag. Space isn't a perfect vacume. or am i being super picky

just a very good question

The room would be part of the universe. Although, since space is nothing but a separation, there would be no "room" past the outwardmost object.

yes and no

the "room " is based on energy/matter

for me and I have not calculated this but I think that there is a certain amount of space needed per atom for the atom to exist ( which would extend somewhat out beyond the atom its self ) and when then multiplied by the amount of atoms in the Universe would give you the size or the volume of the Universe as it is

north

time is not as real as space at all

 

time is merely a mathamatical concept used to to understand movement

What makes you say that? Just as distance is the separation between objects, duration is the separation between states of a system.

distance is well distance

duration on the other hand is based on the energy applied to either system or just by one system to move together or apart

and that energy is based on the energy of the system and/or particles involved , time has nothing to contribute and was never meant to

Time and space are similar concepts in that they are both just separations. They are also both relative with respect to reference frames due to the energy differences between frames.

relative is about perspective . human perspective

but to the object(s) there is no perspective , they , the objects , just do what they do

gravity doesn't curve space but curves the matter within that space

What makes you say that?

because space has no substance in and of its self

the only thing outside our Universe , if there is such a thing , is room

Hang on...

 

Originally Posted by north

and of course when looked at three dimensionally

 

the expansion pushs and pulls three dimensionally

 

leading to a null expansion by the Universe

 

 

north's conclusion to a non-expanding universe, has little or nothing to do with...

 

with ?

 

Originally Posted by north

( this space-time concept is out dated now , since it is a two dimensional movement of things)

 

Since when has space-time been two dimensional ?

 

since it does not include " affect "

 

 

 

What precisely is 'the circle of movement of things, which of course leads to a sphere' ? I'm really struggling to understand what you're talking about.

 

cause>effect>affect is continuous and the circle of the movement of things , with no particular order of the three

 

each cause>effect>affect has aspects of the others before and after an event

 

 

 

 

I just don't want to see people confusing ajb's rather neat explanation, (which, mind you, I feel can be easily misinterpreted) with whatever north is talking about.

 

Just to make it perfectly clear, all current observational data, shows we're in an isotropic universe that is expanding at an accelerated rate, this data is becoming a lot more refined recently, so let's not confuse the issue, for casual readers.

 

but all this data is based on our position in this Universe

 

if I was in another point , say the exact opposite of our point of view what then ?

 

then I would see the opposite of what we see

 

so that what we see as expansion , and so would the opposite see expansion but in reverse

 

hence a null

Time is as real as space... neither of them can "move stilled objects", but curvature of space-time due to gravity can.

time is not as real as space at all

time is merely a mathamatical concept used to to understand movement

gravity doesn't curve space but curves the matter within that space

Wouldn't causality (as we know it) be "non existent" for anyone who can observe the whole space time?

 

no

 

because the for anyone who can observe the full Universe ( this space-time concept is out dated now , since it is a two dimensional movement of things ) observes " affect " as well

 

so that cause>effect thinking ( which is two dimensional thinking upon things ) is advanced by the introduction of " affect " which produces a three dimensional picture of the way things really are.

 

the circle of movement of things ( cause>effect ) is replaced by and which then of course leads to the sphere of the movement of things , in no particular order > affect>cause>effect>cause>effect>affect>cause etc.

ok so I just bought of that and I was wondering if such theory was already proposed or if its just a ridiculous idea.

 

Basicaly its on what was there before the big bang. We know that when star dies it usually implodes then explodes. Now what if we think of a black hole as a star. It does emit gamma rays which is basicaly a high energy light. And I basicaly acts like a star. And some stars become black holes which can be thought of as the next step in the evolution of the star rather then its death.

 

Now what if the black holes have some point if "critical mass" where it acts the same as the star? It explodes. Wouldnt that mean that all the elements which got absorbed into the cingularity would be blown out. If the process of spaghettification applies to atoms it means by the time it reaches cingularity point its disassembled into quarks. Therefore it can form the universal atoms of helium, hydrogen, etc. So now when his critical mass is attained and black holes go boom all these elements are ejected into vacuum and begin forming basic elements.

 

So it seems that it all works and the previous universe surrounding the whole would blown away by the energy it emits which should be far beyond the energy of gamma rays.

 

Now tell me what u think be kind please LOL

of course you assume that " blackholes " exist in the first place based on GR ( general realivity )

I don't

So if the universe has a finite size, which i had previously, previously meaning way in the past, heard it didnt, what is outside the universe? Is there any mathematical proof or such or just wild speculation? It seems very confusing that there is something outside the universe, i mean what would it be like and such? It must just be my tiny incompetent early 21st century mind........

what is outside the Universe ?

there isn't an outside nor does there need to be , " an outside of the Universe "

To answer your question you're going to have to carefully define what you mean by "real physical essence" and "influence on the movements of objects"

 

inotherwords can time ( in and of its self alone ) move stilled objects ?

 

What is true is that you can't write equations of motion for objects without some time component.

 

true

 

but what is more importantly true , is that the equations of the motion of objects don't come from time its self but the interaction of objects with other objects or the energy within a single object its self

 

therefore it is the energy within the objects themselves and as well their interaction(s) with other objects which create the situation of which time can be concieved

Can you please explain what this "order of space is"?

 

And how gravity has anything to do with the "spin or rotation energy of the object"?

space without order is non-directional

what gives order to space is the rate of spin or rotation

plus the density of matter within this said space within the objects rotational influence

the thinner the density of matter per cubic meter of space the less influence the rotation has or " gravity "

I just read in science illustrated that scientists have found a "hole" in the universe. To be more specific its a patch of the universe that has nothing in it, the WMAP satellite found a large patch that is cold and supposedly has no galaxies in it. It is about 1 billion light years in diameter. If their calculations are correct than it would upset the current big bang theory. One theory is that early on in the universes life there was a quantam fluctuation that left an "imprint" in the structure of the universe, which we would see as that void. Another theory is that the universe is not homogenous but is fractal. And finally the third theory set forth in the article is that the void is an imprint of another universe on ours, that the foreign universe pushed on one region of our universe which resulted in less matter and universe in that area. I just thought that this was an interesting article.

or the scientists are either wrong or misinterpreted the info

Seeing how well relativity has been doing for so many years I'd say that the physical concept of time cannot just be ignored.

but nevertheless is in correct

Why gravity is always attractive. Why there is no repulsion?

because gravity is about the order of space

and this order of space is based on the spin or rotation energy of the object

and of course when looked at three dimensionally

the expansion pushs and pulls three dimensionally

leading to a null expansion by the Universe

there is this wide pervasive thinking that time, in and of its self , has some real physical essence to it

inotherwords time has influence on the movement of objects

is this true ?

Do you remember these premises?

1. That entropy, causing the distinction of past and future, makes our perception of the future as something we move towards, and when we do, it seems as though the future is already apart of our memories. For this reason, one must suspect that somehow thought and wishes exists beyond the observer.

explain further

2. That information or knowledge about a system instantly becomes known to the observer upon measurement.

not fully

measurement for the most part just scratches the surface of information or knowledge of a system

and if , I , as an individual mind , doesn't believe in god then what ?

I think part of the problem is that you ignore the idea that space is not JUST space, it's Space-Time (linked, combined, working-together, however you want to put it).

I don't ignore this idea of Space-time

but what I'm saying is this

first , space has no fabric associated with it

if I take out any energy/matter within any amount of space , will space then still be affected ? it has not been shown that space has any inherent physical form independent of energy/matter

you warp the energy/matter IN space but NOT space its self

second , time . time is a geometric mathematical concept used to understand the relationship between the movement(s) of object(s) only . time is not meant to be considered the " cause " of the movement(s) between objects

The geometry you give seem to be a very VERY simplified idea of geometry, so no wonder the current theories don't fit it. If you read a bit further into it, though, you will see that there is absolutely no problems "fitting" Einstein's theories to a working (proven!) model - geometric or "just" physical.

then describe the physical dynamics between the sun and mercury without any mathematical concept references

The reason we state this as speculative is because it's not (perhaps 'yet', but still isn't) proven, or based on factual data, or is mainstream science. When it is, then we will discuss it in the physics forum, or whatever other science-forum it belongs to.

I hope , it will in the end , be mainstream thinking if not now

Your idea is interesting, but it has absolutely no factual basis, or observational structure at all. It isn't even a theory, it's a statement. Putting it in the speculation forum isn't necessarily meant to "demote" the subject, it's meant to show that it isn't yet a full fledged theory, and is the best place to try and make it into one.

 

But you have to start with the basics: Proof.

 

~moo

how can my ideas not be based on fact ?

are you saying that the essence of all energy/matter is based on time alone ?

lets take then two objects which are at an absolute stillness , no vibration , no electromagnetics , no rotation , no movement whats-so-ever in any form and no change in position in space

I now introduce time to provoke movement , how ?

explain how the introduction of time and time alone , between the two objects becomes a physical dynamical force ?

no response , hmmm...

it seems I've proved my point !!

On what evidence does it deserve NOT to be in P&S? If you provide some, then it may get moved out.

simplely put all geometric mathematics are based on geometric forms and those geometric forms are based on energy/matter , fundamentally

inotherwords the essence of any form is energy/matter based , and this is the essence of my position

while Einstein is correct in using geometry to perdict where a body may be in the future his theory is incomplete .

time , space and even gravity are the resultant of a geometric perspective , this is a natural out-come of this perspective . because this is the result of a three dimensional plane . since they had no understanding of the physical dynamics between objects which " caused " the geometry to end up being true

since Einstein was not looking at the why , but analysing the observations

but what I'm trying to get into is the why . and the why is based on energy/matter interactions between objects

hence my thinking is not based on some pseudo or speculative science

it is based on real energy/matter interactions between objects which govern the geometric mathematics in the end

As I understand it space-time is now considered to have a structure of sorts....

well continue...

interesting

my thread has been moved to " Pseudoscience and Speculations " based on what evidence ?

We do know why, it's gravity and that causes the geometric bending of space...

yet space has no substance to it , space is part of the geometric explanation , naturally inherent in a geometric explanation behaviour of things

it is the matter IN space that is bent , not space

and gravity is also a geometric invention to account for a certain behaviour of things

for why then is mercury not sucked into the sun , being so much closer to the sun then is Earth

mercury has

a mass of 3.3 x10^23 kg , 0.055 of the mass of Earth , radius is 0.38 of Earth , an average density of 5400kg/m^3 , Escape speed of 4.3km/s

Are you saying the theory is invalid because the geometry isn't really what's happening really when you get right down to it?

 

Because if you are, you're pretty much wrong, especially in a physics sense, the maths is what's happening or a model there of, a "deeper understanding" which some people want isn't science... sorry if this isn't what you're getting at an I'm jumping to conclusions here....

no

what I'm saying is that while the geometric mathematics right

what the mathematics don't know is the reason WHY it is right

hence they don't know the physical dynamics or the cause of the physical dynamic

for instance the physical dynamics between the sun and the planet mercury

while we know geometric relationship between the sun and mercury we don't know why

This doesn't make sense.

Geometry applies to the theory just fine, the 'physical dynamics' you talk about don't really matter, that is, if we're still talking about the theory...

yes the geometry is fine , it works but

the " physical dynamics " do matter since it is the essence of the geometric mathematics in the first place