Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Neutral

About czimborbryan

  • Rank
  • Birthday 03/13/1974

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    Deep River, CT
  • Interests
    Other than bending my mind, I enjoy mountain biking, hiking, guitar, art, and computer stuff.
  • College Major/Degree
    MS Therapeutic Recreation
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Theoretical God Stuff
  • Biography
    For some reason I am good at thinking this stuff up.
  • Occupation
    Therapeutic Recreation
  1. I like the idea of simulation, but it's even difficult for computers to simulate the weather 5 days down the road, let alone a universe. A super-computer may do the trick. This would be a tremendously fun project. Tiny variables could be changed to produce answers to really big questions - or at least give clues.
  2. There would have to be some type of underlying structure to organize the bits in a perceivable way (similar to a computer).
  3. Refreance frames are not real, they are a tool to isolate occurances. Using a universal frame of referance shows that these discrempancies in speed of light are real (because there are infinite frames of referance). What i meant about time and kinetics is that movement does not CAUSE the change in time, but that the change of time accomodates movement. It's more of a simultainious thing and not one thing that causes the other.
  4. As simply stated as possible, time is the speed at which matter or energy exists. Time is proportional to gravity and the density of time can be rendered with the same model that is used for the strength of gravitational fields. The strength of gravitational field is the result of the variation of time density which causes movement. Time is not a movement from past to future. It is in the here and now. When considering kinetic matter (linear and spinning) and tremendous explosive release of energy, the behavior of time density gets very complicated. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOh yeah, I'm not saying that this has been proven. It is an explanation for a few things and open for discussion.
  5. It has been observed. See the links: http://leapsecond.com/pages/atomic-tom/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift Read about History and how the speed of light is calculated differently depending on where it is at (space or on Earth). If it is calculated differently to get to the same speed...speed is actually DIFFERENT. The calculations are manipulated to keep light speed at a constant depending on your frame of reference. If you ignore frame of reference and take a real-world look at the speed of light, it is not constant.
  6. Not necesarily that space ends somewhere, but that time and gravity end somewhere or somehow (not sure how to explain this when I leave out space). I just confused myself. I feel as though i just walked around the block and ended up in Japan. I guess that if we are saying that space is not real, then time and gravity may be just as much an illusion - back to the idea of a digital universe. The question that i have is what is behind this illusion?
  7. The Planck temperature is the highest temperature in conventional physics because conventional physics breaks down at that temperature. Above 1032 K—that is, earlier than one Planck time—calculations show that strange things, unknown things, begin to happen to phenomena we hold near and dear, like space and time. Theory predicts that particle energies become so large that the gravitational forces between them become as strong as any other forces. That is, gravity and the other three fundamental forces of the universe—electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces—become a single unified force. Knowing how that happens, the so-called "theory of everything," is the holy grail of theoretical physics today. "We do not know enough about the quantum nature of gravitation even to speculate intelligently about the history of the universe before this time," writes Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg about this up-against-a-brick-wall instant in his book The First Three Minutes. "Thus, whatever other veils may have been lifted, there is one veil, at a temperature of 1032 K, that still obscures our view of the earliest times." Until someone comes up with a widely accepted quantum theory of gravity, the Planck temperature, for conventional physicists like Steven Weinberg, will remain the highest temperature. What I am suggesting is that time/gravity already accounts for this. There is no veil, it's just that everyone is perceiving these three forces as seperate when time is the only thing there. This is a short list of terms that define a singled-out effect of time/gravity: momentum, inertia, gravity, magnetism, light... it's all the same thing. Time/gravity and the effects of varying density of time account for all of this. It's already there. The process of science has over-compartmentalized everything; look at what ties all of these things together - time.
  8. My 2 cents. I do not believe that time moves. Time is static in the here and now and there is no past or future. Time must have existed at the point of the big bang (only God knows if it was there first or if it was simultaineous), but there is no way that time was created by the bang (otherwise there would not have been a bang or anything). I am not sure how to explain the improbability of the universe as finite. There are some important consequences of this. If the universe is finite, there is a geographical point at which time/gravity does not exist and therefore matter and light are impossible. What is the nature of this state of nothingness? Or does this alternative state have properties that do not accomodate the properties of time/gravity. I am more inclined to think that the universe is infinite within it's own boundaries of time/gravity. This means that the universe can accomodate varying amounts of mass and that mass is not finite.
  9. I can replace the terms and in fact did. This is because gravity and time are ...(as stated above). Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I am familiar with the relationship of time and kinetic energy, but to say that kinetic energy causes it is not correct. This shift in time-density in a kinetic state allows motion to happen, it is synonimous with the movement itself. However, you are absolutely correct about gravitational potential. I threw together the above numbers in about ten minutes because certain people want to see stuff like that - and it turned out they were off (big surprise). Anyway, this is what I was trying to say. The position that you are at in a gravitational field determines the value for time density, because this field IS time density. So gravitational potential is the perfect way to measure it, because it is concerned with the strength of the field. The difference of time-density between two positions creates what is called time dilation, but i do not necessarily agree with the terminology and the way it is explained. As stated before, you can see the time-density by studying a rendering of the gravitational field. The speed that light moves in low areas of time/gravity is much faster than in high areas of time/gravity - despite frame of reference, because frame of reference is immaginery. This difference in speed is real and can not be discounted.
  10. Speak for yourself. If you can't speculate intelligently about it, don't bother. Meanwhile, I'll be speculating up a storm.
  11. Force Created by the variation of Time Density Formula as quoted from http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/gravity.htm : The force exerted from the variation in time density is the same as gravity: F = mt where F is the force pulling objects toward the Earth; it is also the weight of the object m is the mass of the object t is the acceleration due to the variation of time-density; this number is a constant for all masses of matter mt is the product of m times t The value of t equals 9.8 m/s² in the metric system and 32 ft/s² in the English system. Change in Time Density Time density effects the speed at which things exist at the following intervals above Earth's surface. For every 100 meters, time is about 0.00000000001% faster; however, upon reaching 220,000 meters gravity (force of time) is 9.16 m/s² and time is moving between 0.000000022% and 6.5% faster because the gravitational field (time-density) is rapidly decreasing. Remember, this is assuming there is no moon or sun or other gravity interacting with Earth and that the Earth is not spinning and the objects are still. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThis means that light even radiating from lightning is moving 0.00000000001% faster at 100 meters above Earth's surface. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIgnore point of reference, use universal reference.
  12. Read the quote above at posting #30 about gravity when objects reach super-high temps. I was reffering to this for burning the hell out of somthing. I do not beleive that black holes burn the hell out of anything.
  13. You are not representing a formula for the essence of gravity, but for the force gravity exerts over a given space. This same formula CAN be used to calculate the force of movement time creates. You CAN use a spring scale to measure the ratio of time-density because the force time exerts changes in proportion to gravity. Remember, time is not time on your clock. Time is the relative speed at which objects exist. Uranium is a great example. Uranium will radiate at a constant rate. If a block of uranium was dragged out to deep space in an area of low time/gravity, the rate of radiation would be sharply different than the radiation from uranium on the surface of Earth. Time is necessary for movement and the existence of matter. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFurthermore, similar to radiation, the speed of light changes based on the density of time/gravity. Right now at this instant, light is moving more slowly here on Earth than in the same spot we dropped that bar of uranium and in the same way.
  14. You missed some of the interesting conversation above that led me to change my mind about disintegration.
  15. Moo, This is where the soul use of math has blinded your reasoning. This equation is a tool for understanding the force of gravity and has nothing to do with representing the essence of it. This is the scientific equivelent of writing the equation for force of impact for a bullet and saying that guns don't exist because they are not in the formula. I don't think you understand gravity at all, you can do the math, but you don't understand the concepts. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged You are confusing the mechanics of time within the universe with time on your wall clock.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.