Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by czimborbryan

  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.
  16. Now we're getting somewhere. So the highest temperature has a limit, not necessarily due to physics, but due to the limitations of science...(enter stories, conjecture, and hand-waving) The statement above about theorizing that the force of gravity may become super strong is interesting. The one thing that makes sense for my view on things is that once a super-high energy is attained, the time density becomes super-dense and freezes (not in the real use of the word, but almost all properties of time nearly stop, such as in a black hole). This is also what I beleive happens to waves to form particles. Now remember that I see time and gravity is one and not seperate (mostly because I think gravity is not a real force, just a result of varying time densities which causes movement). I immagined this "freezing" of time only possible at a catastrophic impact or explosion that reached such an energy that the explosion froze time. I never thought it could be achieved by particle vibration from heat. My reasoning for this is that if heated slowly and not instantly, to this Planck temperature, the particles would continue to release enough energy to never truly hit the "freezing" point of time. This would most certainly happen if the heat source was instant. So what i am saying is that if the heat source was a slow climb to Planck temp, I think the particles would eventually disintegrate instead of "freezing" and the forces and gravity would not become super-strong, but gravity and the forces would not be able to sustain matter or even particles. Oh wait! Here is the catch, if a bit of matter were to disintegrate in this fashion, it would provide just the spark needed to freeze time because of the tremendous release of energy from disintegrating. So, it looks as though either way time would freeze creating a super-strong gravity and what would most certainly be a black hole similarly dangerous time/gravity effect. Now it makes sense (at least to me). I wonder if this freezing of time would create conditions similar to absolute zero? Is there any ideas floating about concerning the temperature of a black hole? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOK, I'll answer this question. (based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_thermodynamics ) The temperature of a black hole, as classicaly understood, is (drumroll please) - Absolute Zero! However, according to recent calculations, the temperature is considered non-zero which means as close to absolute zero as possible while still emitting radiation. So, what we have learned here is that when you burn the hell out of something above it's maximum temperature, it's gravity goes into super-mode and haulting movement altogether and resulting in ... absolute zero. So, the highest temperature is also the lowest - absolute zero - as I stated about a dozen times now. Thank You, I will bill you later.
  17. 1. Gravity and time are indistinguishable from one another (space may also be bundled up in this as well, except I'm not sure about this). 2. Your quote about current theory is incorrect. So after reading a bit about relativity, it turns out that my great earth-shaking idea of gravity and time has already been written about (maybe I should read a little more). Tony Stanton wrote the following in his paper Gravity, Time & Space A theory of three dimensional Spacetime Part IV: "Whilst it is true we all experience the direction or arrow of time there has never been a real physical explanation for time itself in known physics nor has there ever been any real physical explanation for the presence of space. All theories of gravity, until now, have used Newton’s universal gravitational constant but the purely geometrical nature of TR and the radical way spacetime is viewed in this concept does away with the need to use ‘G’. The foundation of the theory of TR is based on time and space being exactly the same entity. In this concept matter radiates a zone of spacetime by a fixed volume each and every second." - AND he provided the math which i will not pretend to understand: http://www.wbabin.net/science/stanton10.pdf See the following info for more: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/gravity.html http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/omei/gr/chap5/node8.html http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96095009 The difference between relativity and my idea is that I beleive: 1. The speed of light is not a constant because variation in time literally change the speed of light and anything passing through it (disregarding a single frame of reference - because of the nature of time/gravity there really is no true single frame of reference- the real frame of reference is a universal one, because this is what we are dealing with in reality). 2. Time/Gravity is the "ether" for which waves travel (light spectrum). 3. The absence of time/gravity = the absence of everything. 4. The essence of particles are waves formed by collisions which due to the nature of time/gravity, become "frozen" and material. 5. The relationship of time and gravity are proportional to one another and/or equate one another. 6. Time does not move from past to future, it is static in the here and now and provides a ratio of movement only with all frames of reference at the same time. 7. Time has density, which can be visualized by seeing a rendering of gravitational field lines around a mass. The more dense time/gravity, the slower time moves. At areas of deep space, time barely exists which can accomodate great speeds of both matter and light. - I'm not sure what else to say.
  18. This sounds possible, but I haven't ruled out the possibility of space as being real. Is there a kicker or any idea that would seem to make this theory make more sense than real space?
  19. I second that motion, for reasons previously stated.
  20. Using the same test above - What if the matter at temperature T (room temperature) was placed in a vaccuum of nothingness as described earlier. Remember, there would be no energy for the matter to absorb (from almost any form of radiation), because there will be no energy in that zone (arguable, I know, but go with it). Does matter radiate more energy while suspeneded in a state of much lower energy, even if there is no matter there to transfer it's energy?
  21. I am not stating that the entire theory of relativity is false. I think there have been some misunderstandings about my stand here. I am not discounting the established science of the theory, but I am stating that within this theory, time is actually the foundation of the forces behind gravity (in layman's terms). This is further defining what has already been defined (as far as I can tell). I am also giving an alternative to the basic building blocks of matter as waves versus strings or particles or whatever. What we have here is an inability to communicate effectively. I do not understand the math and to a large degree the appropraite scientific vocabulary. Few people are understanding my layman's terms and vague concepts. So I guess what we have here is a quagmire. There, however, should be a way for us to meet on some kind of middle ground to discuss these things. This is what I will do (begrudgingly) - I will dip my big toe into the subject a bit more to use better terminology and find specific pre-existing elements of the theory that I can make contrast and comparison statements about. This way, there is a reference point for the scientific community to relate to. However, if i attempt the math, this will become a 10-year obsession that will not have any practical consequences for me, because I am not an established scientist. I have to admit, I had underestimated the degree of methodological communication needed within this scientific community forum. I am more accustomed to open dialogue with purely conceptual verbage and assumed that there would be a forum for such discussions here. In the meantime, if anybody knows of any good work on time and gravity, drop me a line.
  22. Swansont, good point, I beleive that there is a distinction between nothingness and absolute zero that I failed to realize. Follow-up question: does nothingness interact with matter (nothingness meaning the presence of time/gravity, but without matter, waves or particles)? I'm imagining nothingness as having the temperature of absolute zero; such as if you put an item of matter into it, the matter would react as if you had just dipped it into a zone of absolute zero. What do you think?
  23. My point here is that since I made the post, I have had very little conceptual feedback. No explanations about Why these ideas may be wrong. So far it has been wrong because I haven't provided a proof. Yes, I understand that these ideas may be completely wrong and off-base, but I am not submitting a thesis, I'm hoping for discussion about gravity and time. Does anybody here have any interest in this? And no, I will never work out the details of these ideas in a proof, because I do not have the time (work full-time, grad school, married, other hobbies, plus an utter inproficiency with math...). Maybe somebody else can do that. We should be able to discuss this on a conceptual level and ask, "Is this a possibility; yes, no - why"? I do appreciate BigNose's suggestion to read Roger Penrose's The Road to Reality. This is a constructive, but it would be nice to have somebody discuss with me their understanding of the relationship between time and gravity or space and time.
  24. I understand that the particle are not going to just stop and I never stated that. This would be rediculous. The absolute zero comes from all matter in that zone being released into pure energy. For the tiniest amount of time, that zone has no energy left, it had been radiated explosively to the extent that there is nothing remaining - nothing. The recharging of this zone with energy would have the same properties as recharging matter at absolute zero to another state.
  25. The mind-blowing thing here is that the ultimate tool for perceiving these things is our brain. The world we live in now may be as virtual as pacman and we may be perceiving things and measuring things that are not real (similar to TV). The perception of 3 dimensions and space may be a front. This reality may all be somewhat digital.
  • 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.