You can choose to agree or disagree with me, but here are some of my recent beliefs:
1. Time is everywhere. It exists in all dimensions..As a stable address, and as a moving force or work pressure. If there are 1 or 1,000,000 universes, they are all ecompassed by time. Time is everywhere and everywhen. It does not need a dimension, because every dimension is soaked in it. Every universe is soaked in it. And the time in each universe is the same as the time in each other universe. If time is perceived differently in any circumstance, it is because of relativity...but relativity may not be what scientists have thought it is up to this point.
2. We might perceive time as relative. And at certain speeds certain objects may appear to show that time works differently at that speed. But I don't believe that this is exactly/entirely what is going on. If you picture time as the water that everything is immersed in, still waters will eventually erode just about any substance it maintains long term contact with. Add pressure, and that erosion process speeds up. Any matter at a time in space/time is going to be subject to that erosion. As such, it is my belief that items have not aged differently at high speeds, but have just run into time erosion. This is why atomic clocks on airplanes seem to have a different time than a stable reference watch. This is why time seems to function differently at singularities.
3. The winds of time. Aside from the fact that there is time errosion, another factor in the "relativity" of time is what I think of as time friction. Time friction is when you have moving time forces and still time forces interacting with other forces and matter. I don't have exact or real values, but I tend to assign (Ts) to still time, (To) to opposing time, and Ti (i stand for impetus) to moving time. In other words, I believe that Ti= whatever value of time is being used to push something in any single direction. Ts= a still portion of time, Tm= an opposing force of time. So, Te (erosion) is a spot all of these forces have met. I certain the formula I am about to present is overly simplified and far from accurate or correct, but it will demonstrate the basic idea I wish to convey. And perhaps another physcisist or mathematician can provide to real math to it. Te=(Ti(mass of object)-To(mass of any matter in that spot)-Tm(mass of object-mass of matter that was at that spot)) where Te is basically a measurment of the relative time at a spot where time and matter have met, opposed and eroded eachother. Keep in mind that this formula is anot a one shot calculation. The TE of the first calculation, should become the Ti of the next calculation. In fact, it should be recalculated every time increment from beginning of the flight, and then recalculated with the new values over and over until the end of the flight.)
I've heard some scientists discussing singularities, and mentioning that as the gravity becomes so great at the core of the singularity, time ceases to exist. I don't believe that is the case. I think that the perception of time is flawed in a singularity because every other object in the singularity is in a state of change. But if time was really affected or ceased to exist at a singularity, it would cause gravity, matter, light, and electromagnetics to freeze in place near the core. The fact that almost everything seems to disappear and change state/form at the center, leads me to believe that time is still functioning properly there, or none of those things could happen. Nothing would ever make it to the core, and black holes would not be black, because all of the light in that part of the universe would end up rubbing against the timeless iris and basically form a glow that would look like another star. If time works funny there as opposed to ceasing, something at some point would survive long enough to get away from the core/center, because time would actually allow a situation in which time was slow enough to allow that objects natural mass and inertia to float right past the center. Since that has not happened to the best of our knowledge, I'm for now assuming that time works exactly the way it should at a singularity, and any anomolies that might eventually pop up are more of a result of our ignorance of what is truly happening at the cingularity, than any strange affect that the singularity has on time itself.
Comments
Al had it right...
May 21, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 27 weeks ago
Comment: 30037
I think Al had it right, as far as he went. Same as Newton did as far as HE went.... Al just expanded on it... I just don't think its complete. There is more to be explained. There is a mistake/misjudgment somewhere. He came closer to the final answer but its not final yet. Why do we have to create other dimensions and reality's in order to explain things. Not to mention that time ?stops? at the speed of light? I cannot help but feel that is a mistake. Time is like God... unstoppable... time moves at a constant speed regardless of anything else. The fact that our measurement of it changes does NOT mean that time itself changes. once again I am a Layman...
About the singularity
May 3, 2008 by MainFragger, 1 year 29 weeks ago
Comment: 29582
I understand the point of a cingularity, but what you have to realize is that idea behind a cingularity is a human invention of thought and theory and does not necessarily exist.
If we assume singularities actually exist, then I might ammend my statement to say that time might cease to exist in our perceivable dimensions, but continues to exist in other dimensions that might not be directly affected by gravity. That way, we can explain that time might seem to stop from our point of view, but is still functioning somewhere.. It has to be that way, because otherwise singularities would be a catch-22..It needs time to exist at its locale, but its existance requires that time doesn't exist at that locale. That simply doesn't make sense to me.
If we assume singluarities don't exist, then we can simply claim that our relative perception of a certain area of space are not able to make sense at certain areas of space because the information in and around them never come back to be properly measured. Until we find a way of overcoming that, singularities are the sound of one hand clapping.
MainFragger
Critique
March 24, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 35 weeks ago
Comment: 28299
MainFragger,
You are very imaginative, but some of your thoughts are silly. You should educate yourself on basic physics to add rigor to your thoughts.
I sort of get what you are saying..
December 28, 2007 by MainFraggeraway (not verified), 1 year 47 weeks ago
Comment: 26648
But for me, I just picture the universe like a bubble with an outer meniscus. Time envelops all the 3d space within that bubble and all of the space beyond. Not matter how small matter gets, time will always be smaller. No matter how big matter gets, time will always be bigger. But, I should really say, I picture the universe as we can observe it to be a bubble. If there is space beyond our universe as we think of it, its actually not something else..its just more of our universe. The fact that it exists outside of everything we think of as matter, or that it might be made up of dark matter is irrelevant to that statement. The universe doesn't care what its made of, or what is or isn't the universe. The universe just is.
I very much picture matter as being a sponge that is completely submerged in and saturated with a liquid that we think of as time. Matter provides the materials of the universe, the dimensions give it a framework or shape (skeleton?), and time gives it impetus (muscles?). Gravity, Magnetism and Light all have their place too (organs?).
If the universe is a flat sheet from the outside that is made up of all of those items. Although gravitational fields seem to suggest there are dimples and divots in the sheet. I tend to believe that the sheet is like the ultimate LCD screen, made up of pixels (matter), a timing circuit (time), Color processing (Gravity and Magnetism), and a main processor of some kind that decides what happens when.
Basically, what I am saying with metaphors is that the universe has both mechanical, organic, and intelligent operations. As I have said before, we are the universe, the universe is us. When we try to understand more about the universe, it is the universe asking another portion of itself (us) questions to understand more about itself.
One of the reasons that I like this sheet idea, is that techncially time, matter, and other forces can occupy the same space, but be very different sheets. They all interdepend on eachother.
It is for this reason that I find no problem understanding why atoms at two different locations very far apart can get information instantaenously. In an idealized experiment, imagine you had a plate floating on a raised section of water connected to a pipe, and an exactly sized duplicate plate and raised section. For the purpose of this ideall, friction is not a problem, the tube is absolutely air tight. If you push down on one plate, the other rises instantly. Now if you repeat this experiment, no matter how long you make the pipe, the result should always be the same. 1 Ft. or a 100 light years.. As long as everything fits the ideals, the experiment should be just as instanteaneous.
So, imagine that everything in the universe actually is so packed into the universe, that it fits this ideal. Then the oppositely rotating atom should always react to the change you make in your test atom the same way. What really blows my mind about this isn't that it works this way, but that other matter doesn't get confused by or doesn't confuse this process. In essence, by changing your test atom, you are making it a loose piece compared to the rest of a very rigid universe, and as a result, doing the same to the atom that reacts.
Time
December 26, 2007 by Dave W (not verified), 1 year 48 weeks ago
Comment: 26603
If we can think of space as a form of matter some very interesting things happen. Let's start with a piece of 2 dimensional space like a peice of paper. If you draw a 2 dimensional man on this paper, what does he do? He doesn't do anything. He just sits there. In order to make him move you have to draw another picture of the 2 dimensional man on another paper and then another and so forth. Then flip through them in rapid succession like an old fashion cartoon and the man moves around.
The old fashion cartoon is something like the propagation of a wave. Think of how a sound wave works. Take one cycle of a sound wave.
It begins at a point(big bang?) and propagates in all directions like an expanding soap bubble as each generation of air molecules transmits energy to the next generation of air molecules. This soap bubble is practically a two dimensional space but is curved into the shape of a sphere. In this way three dimensional air molecules form a two dimensional 'spacetime'. Now we can extrapolate upward to an element that exists in 4 dimensional space. When a wave propagates through an element that exists in 4 dimensional space it forms a 3 dimensional 'spacetime'.
We can think of spacetime as something like the pattern that is formed by the propagation of a wave through an element that exists in a higher dimension of space.
This can help us understand why space is curved, why energy is quantized, what constitutes the arrow of time, dark matter, dark energy, and the expansion of the universe.
Dave W.
It seems like your beliefs
December 13, 2007 by Anonymous, 1 year 49 weeks ago
Comment: 26438
It seems like your beliefs hinge on the assumption that time is a substance that pervades other dimensions. Your analogy to water causing erosion seems to be misguided. As I, another layman, see it, time is a dimension just as the other three dimensions. That would indicate that my position in the three other dimensions is completely independent of my position in the fourth, time, dimension. And, as the big bang theory indicates, we - at the start of the current expansion in the universe - are moving outwards in every space dimension. I think it would be a interesting assumption that we were also propelled into an outward direction in the time dimension.
Also, in your erosion analogy - you must keep in mind that you need time itself for erosion, or aging (progression of entropy), to occur. This seems to be a problem with many explanations of time, because for the 'stuff' of the time dimension to have an effect on something it must itself have TIME to do it. You can't explain time in a way that requires time itself.
A better explanation, I believe, would explain time (or any dimension for that matter, in terms of the other dimensions. I can't quite wrap my head around what this would look like but i feel like there needs to be some sort of unification theory regarding the different dimensions.
Lastly, on your problem with time ceasing to exist in a singularity, I have to disagree. The whole point of it being a singularity is because you can never reach it for there is no TIME to reach it in. Therefore you will travel forever towards it until it evaporates (if it does.) And while there may be a tremendous amount of light trapped at or near the event horizon, we will never see it because it will never reach our eyes. However, there is a lot of very hot material around the black hole that we do see --- so yes, it actually does appear as a bright point.
Anyways, I'm open to discussion on this, I am certainly no expert on this subject and love this sort of discussion!
~Alex Gorstan
I replied in the wrong area..so recapping..
May 4, 2008 by MainFragger, 1 year 29 weeks ago
Comment: 29595
Truthfully, I am not 100 per cent convinced there ARE other dimensions. The reason for scientists believing in other dimensions is mostly for the convenience of making math work to explain space and time effects and eneregy usage in a way that so far doesn't make total sense to them. In other words, its mostly bs..And scienctists are really good at making it sound good and plausible, but, yeah..most of it is unproven, unmeasurable, and may never be perceivable. I'm not outright trashing the possibility of them existing. But I AM saying that, to me, the reasons for believing in them at this point in time seem pretty rediculous and until something changes to prove they exist beyond a shadow of a doubt, I choose to believe that they probably don't exist. All the math that goes along with dimensions is pretty, and impressive, but its a facade on a house that might not have any support columns.
That having been said, the reason I don't see time as a dimension is that it is not independant of the other dimensions. For example, in a dimension where the movements are strictly up, down, left, right, forward, backward there is no true diagonal. But most people just accept that when we see a diagonal its a mix of two dimensions constantly being flitted in and out of enough to appear as a smooth ray in a direction in between the main two dimensions. Although I accept that this works for current math and geometry for now, I have a feeling that as we get into traveling space later down the line, the need to create new diagonal math to be more direct and efficient in how fuel is managed over extended distances will be necessary. Or maybe it will add more insight into how atomic clocks are affected by rotational forces. And may eventually be adapted as the true fourth dimension. Because my idea of true diagonal isn't a mix of the two dimensions, but is actually a true straight dimension of its own. In diagonal math, a height of 1 and a length of 1 doesn't result in a right triangle with a hypotaneuse of the square root of two. It results in a diagonal slope of 1. Math beyond that I'd have to work out, and I'll be honest, I have neither the talent or patience to do it. But on a day off, maybe I'll tinker with it a bit and see what I come up with.
Magnetism and Gravity are forces that act upon matter,and so is Time. If time is a dimension, so is Gravity and Magnetism. Since no one seems to believe that Magnetism and Gravity are dimensions, I don't think time is either. Time is just a force that pushes us forward and ages everything (at least as far as our perceptions tell us..)
Anwyay, I am giving scientists a little creedence when I say that time may exist in other dimensions and pervade them.
Time=errosion. Time doesn't have to do anything to itself to erode anything. Time IS the eroding agent. However, I suspect the rate that things are aged by time follows a very similar math to the gravitational fields of two planets or the electromagnetic charge between two ions, mixed in with some general cause and effect. The size of time and matter are relative to each other, but some aspects of time seem to be either fixed, or constantly in motion. So what happens when matter at fixed spacetime meets matter with matter and time that is in motion? Well, I'm sure you've seen the balls on a desk that click back and forth as a cause and effect experiment. I suspect what happens is very similar. Except, there is wear and tear on the affected ball. In other words, imagine that every time the first ball hits the second ball, and translates across the rest of the balls, until the last kicks out and swings back again, the last ball somehow loses a little of its mass or solidness. Similarly, I suspect that when big and small pieces of space time collide, the smaller matter experiences a large amount of wear and tear, and the big piece very little wear and tear. This might actually be the reason water CAN erode harder objects over time.
As I try to imagine what other dimensions would look like, I get the sense that they would be similary to our existing dimension with more (semi-contextual) data. In other words, in a four dimensional world, I can look at my hand..and see my hand..but I will also see smaller and larger aspects to my hand that might seem to exist underish my skin, and overish my skin at the same time. To be more specific, my skin would not be see through, but I'd still get an impression of detail under my skin as if I could see through my skin. Outside the skin might be a extra data that might almost look like lucite, but be more ephemeral, and would probably look like an extended, exaggerated outline drawing of my arm.
The problem is, all of these layers are one, and the same, and different. And to someone unused to observing in 4 dimensions, would be almost too sharp at certain points, and out of focus at other points. But once you practice, you can actually train your eyes to focus on what is important for you to focus on at a given time. And the rest just becomes background noise. Unfortunately, when you go back the 3D world, you're going to have one HECK of a headache from all of the focusing and refocusing you had to do in 4D world. And for a moment, your eyes are going to have to recalibrate back to 3D again. One side effect is that you may notice hints of the 4D world in our 3D world once you have had the benefit of observing them in the first place.
Singularities remind me of the old logic trap,
"Everything I say next is a lie
Everything I said before is true."
The center of a black hole is not a singularity..its just instant death, and if you could somehow survive the conditions to get to the center, then the center would just seem like hell. Because if no form of matter or light can escape, then you will pretty much be in the most radiated place in the universe. And if you can survive that, then, the ultimate wood chipper is spinning at the center.
Time might not come back measurably from a black hole, but trust me, it exists there. Time cannot stop. Time is, time advances, and time will always be. NOTHING can stop time.
My tought process..
December 13, 2007 by MainFragger, 1 year 49 weeks ago
Comment: 26451
My thought process for time being a force and not a dimension is that if time were a dimension, so would magnetism and gravity. Although we have heard talk that either might be from another dimension, neither to my knowledge has actually been called a dimension. Also, the original dimension are meant to show possible directions of movement. Although time advances and moves forward, there is already a forward and backward dimension. And I think the fact that we believe that time moves forward is more of the result of a partial perception of reality, than a fact.
We already know there is such a thing as space/time, but I also believe there is magnetotime, and gravitime.
My number one ideal is that TIME NEVER STOPS. No matter what. No effect and happening can occur without the advancement of time. Black holes or singularities cannot exist if time does not exist at that location, becuase then neither rotation or gravitational forces can function to provide the effect that causes the black hole or singularity. Remember the existance we perceive is governed by time, matter and events. Take any of those three out of the equation, and there is nothing for us to perceive.
Time can rub against itself, but its totally teflon or wispy in effect and will slip by or through other time with little or no pause. However, if there is any matter or material mixed in or other forces mixed in with that time, they will be eroded by the time friction caused by the two forces colliding. Think of it is spontaneous accelleration. For a runner to get a time that is squared, he'd usually have to lap himself fast enough to race beside the after image of himself. If he were to run fast enough to run beside two past after images of himelff, he's now cubed time. In both cases, he has to sustain that fast speed to maintain the illusion. Well, when two opposing time forces collide, time squares very temporarily and in the opposite direction. To further the runner illustration, imagine he now decides to run at that same speed around the world, makes it around and rests for a moment. Now if he were able to run back and eventually run directly into the after image the is now approaching his destination. If he runs through the after image, he will appear to be moving at and through himself at a squared speed again. But as soon as he has passed through, he is just going a normal, unsquared, speed again. It is for this reason, that any matter that is mixed in with opposing time pressure is that it erodes even faster. In effect, the matter is being exposed to spontaneuous time squared. Also, this is kind of an analogy, but hydraulic pressure ratios affect the various mixtures of time and matter. In a time/matter mix, the larger the matter of a time segment is, the more it will erode or pulverize a smaller piece of matter attached to or permeated with another segment of time.
You don't have to explain why time can do something to itself, because time has two states, and existing date/address, and a moving impetus. the moving impetus isn't an event, its the pressure that causes time to advance, and events to occur. So time DOES affect itself.
The nice thing about thinking of time this way, is that it helps explain relativity to an extent (although, I haven't yet described what I think it ties into from the Zen perspective of the universe..(that's a whole other can of worms).
Time
December 14, 2007 by Anonymous, 1 year 49 weeks ago
Comment: 26464
Two questions:
1. Why do you reject the current pervailing theory? I am not looking for justification for YOUR theory, you have already given it with two lengthy posts - just a reason why you have chosen not to accept what scientists and history have to say on the topic.
2. Does your theory have any basis in math or another discipline that requires proofs?
I ask because, well, I honestly don't know exactly how a good, solidly engineered bridge is constructed. I could posit an opinion on how it is done based on my ideas of what bridges look like, but those ideas will never be close to the truth. In my example, the truth is very easily obtained through reading and discussion with real engineers - where I accept their experiences and confirm it against understood, proven practices.
This all should end up with me testing my theory on how a solidly engineered bridge is built. If I choose to go against the current standard, I should have SOMETHING to back me up... The justification that a bridge made of marshmallows is a good idea should be proved through calculations of some sort.
Eric
Just trying to make sense of it all..
December 16, 2007 by MainFragger, 1 year 49 weeks ago
Comment: 26479
1. Too much of it seems like flight of fancy to me. I have not read all the details of every paper, but a lot of the general descriptions of certain experiments have left me feeling like not everything was fully explored before someone pulled a rabbit out of their hat and called it a theory. The nice thing about theories is that they are not yet proven to be laws. So you can still easily enough refute them. And its even easier when its the type of theory that the technology currently doesn't allow you to really either prove or disprove. I know that scientists know more on these subjects than I do.. But the fact that they haven't solidified their theories into laws means that my Laymen opinion or theories on physics is not really any less likely to be right than thiers. Maybe I'm full of hot air, but until someone can prove it or disprove it, I think I'm not.
2. Not so much math, maybe a little in what I understand of science that I've read from books and web sites.. I've done tech support for about 12 years, and photography for the past 4 years. Many of my ideas come from hearing certain theories take what I think of as MAJOR leaps in logic...and maybe even total abandonment of logic and feeling like someone has to say, "Whoa Nelly! Slow down there!" In some cases, whole branches of math have been created and adapted to certain theories...that have no real basis in science. Its like, Great..you made the math make sense and add up for one portion of the phenomenon you were looking at, but what does it mean for everything? There so far hasn't been an answer. Many scientists seem to me to be looking for a unified theory of existance and don't even have enough of an idea about whats going on around them to even worry about an all encompassing theory. To put it bluntly, since you mentioned bridges and engineering.. Its seems like too many of them are trying to build the hugest bridge ever, when they aren't even sure what materials to use, what their stress points are, or how to deal with bridge weather. I'm still trying to find all the right parts, tolerances and establish all the tools and everything I need to figure out how to build that bridge. In essence, I am trying to look at the universe as a machine with parts, and all the parts have to make sense to me before I worry about what they are parts to. The other thing, is that a lot of the theories I've seen have these people building the Golden Gate bridge for a creek that's ten feet across. I'm just looking to build a rope bridge.
If my analogies haven't confused the heck out of you, then I guess you'll gather that in my own way, I'm following the Keep it simple, stupid! Rule when I come up with this stuff. If there are people out there that know more than I do, I hope they can apply that approach and then just back it with more of their knowledge.. But so far, I haven't seen much of that..
Oh - and one more thing:
December 14, 2007 by Anonymous, 1 year 49 weeks ago
Comment: 26466
To comment about the speed relating to time passage, please see this article as an example that speed is only one way of measuring time passage differences: (in this case - distance from a large center of gravity)
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/12/time_hackers
Any thoughts?
Eric
This DOES give me more insight..
December 17, 2007 by MainFragger, 1 year 49 weeks ago
Comment: 26506
But leaves me with a few questions that I think I was already asking or suggesting anyway.
1. If speed affects relativity, and distance from the core of the planet, when both factors are used and accounted for (from an airplane or shuttle flight?) does the math equal out, or is there still a time discrepancy?
2. Do you think the time discrepancy could be from matter in the air capable of flitting through the matter of the airplane and everything on it creating a form of friction or erosion?
3. Is it possible certain forms of light or light spectrums might be causing this? It's been established that light at subatomic size can send matter skittering away. Maybe this is part of what is happening to the parts that make up the clocks in these experiments?
4. Time seems to eventually wear down and/or age just about everything. Do you think that if we eliminated all other possibilities, and there was still a discrepency, that time itself is the corrosive force whittling down the materials of the clocks and and materials/substances they run off of?