Effects of time during accellerating space expansion

[PJay_A]

Just a thought. If space is expanding at an accellerating rate since the Big Bang, should then time also be accellerating? According to my thinking here, moments after the Big Bang time should be nearly standing still and has been running faster since and should continue to accellerate as long as space expansion too is accellerating.

Am I thinking logically or are there things I haven't considered?

 

[DrRocket]

Just a thought. If space is expanding at an accellerating rate since the Big Bang, should then time also be accellerating? According to my thinking here, moments after the Big Bang time should be nearly standing still and has been running faster since and should continue to accellerate as long as space expansion too is accellerating.

Am I thinking logically or are there things I haven't considered?

There is a lot that you haven't considered.

For starts, if time is running faster, then with respect to what is it runniing faster? The concept of "faster" requires some independent concept of time to make sense. So you find yourself running in circles.

For another general relativity presents the universe as a space-time manifold in which you cannot cleanly separate time from space in any global fashion.

 

[SpeedFreek]

If time were a function of the rate of expansion, would time stop in a static universe?

 

[PJay_A]

For starts, if time is running faster, then with respect to what is it runniing faster? The concept of "faster" requires some independent concept of time to make sense. So you find yourself running in circles.

For another general relativity presents the universe as a space-time manifold in which you cannot cleanly separate time from space in any global fashion.

Points of referrence are other points in time. So, my line of thinking says that points of time have relavence. And it is for that very reason you mentioned that it is hard to separate space and time that one would expect time to behave in concert with space. So, my line of thinking says that as space accellerates, so must time. My logic thus stands.

Adding to my argument, it is known that time stands still at planck densities (i.e. black holes). At or before the Big Bang, the Universe was of Planck density; therefore, time stood still. Logically, time would speed up and accellerate beginning with the Big Bang.

If I'm right, then it was a Big Bang relative only to us. But if you were to witness it, it would be a Painfully Slow Bang.

 

[PJay_A]

If time were a function of the rate of expansion, would time stop in a static universe?

Yes, I thought that but didn't want to go that far yet in my OP. According to my line of thinking, expansion is the force behind the forward push of time.

 

[DrRocket]

For starts, if time is running faster, then with respect to what is it runniing faster? The concept of "faster" requires some independent concept of time to make sense. So you find yourself running in circles.

For another general relativity presents the universe as a space-time manifold in which you cannot cleanly separate time from space in any global fashion.

Points of referrence are other points in time. So, my line of thinking says that points of time have relavence. And it is for that very reason you mentioned that it is hard to separate space and time that one would expect time to behave in concert with space. So, my line of thinking says that as space accellerates, so must time. My logic thus stands.

Adding to my argument, it is known that time stands still at planck densities (i.e. black holes). At or before the Big Bang, the Universe was of Planck density; therefore, time stood still. Logically, time would speed up and accellerate beginning with the Big Bang.

If I'm right, then it was a Big Bang relative only to us. But if you were to witness it, it would be a Painfully Slow Bang.

There are two possibilities here:

1. You are making no sense and have the sense to realize that you are making no sense but like you hear yourself babble.

2. You are making no sense but don't have the sense to recognize that you are making no sense.

In any case there is no sense in this nonsense.

 

[PJay_A]

Your last response is not the type of respectful intellectual answer I'd expect from you. Please don't downgrade the quality of this conversation by resorting to reference of my points as "nonsence" without explanation. I think I've made strong sound logical points. If you think they are "nonsence", please explain why. Show me where my logic is flawed. If you can and I have no counter explanation, I will quickly admit that my reasoning was in error.

For starts, if time is running faster, then with respect to what is it runniing faster? The concept of "faster" requires some independent concept of time to make sense. So you find yourself running in circles.

For another general relativity presents the universe as a space-time manifold in which you cannot cleanly separate time from space in any global fashion.

Points of referrence are other points in time. So, my line of thinking says that points of time have relavence. And it is for that very reason you mentioned that it is hard to separate space and time that one would expect time to behave in concert with space. So, my line of thinking says that as space accellerates, so must time. My logic thus stands.

Adding to my argument, it is known that time stands still at planck densities (i.e. black holes). At or before the Big Bang, the Universe was of Planck density; therefore, time stood still. Logically, time would speed up and accellerate beginning with the Big Bang.

If I'm right, then it was a Big Bang relative only to us. But if you were to witness it, it would be a Painfully Slow Bang.

There are two possibilities here:

1. You are making no sense and have the sense to realize that you are making no sense but like you hear yourself babble.

2. You are making no sense but don't have the sense to recognize that you are making no sense.

In any case there is no sense in this nonsense.

 

[DrRocket]

Your last response is not the type of respectful intellectual answer I'd expect from you. Please don't downgrade the quality of this conversation by resorting to reference of my points as "nonsence" without explanation. I think I've made strong sound logical points. If you think they are "nonsence", please explain why. Show me where my logic is flawed. If you can and I have no counter explanation, I will quickly admit that my reasoning was in error.

If you really think that you have made sound logical points, you need to get a little more experience with both logic and the factual basis for physics. This has become pointless. adios

 

[lensman01]

This conversation is actually far from pointless.
Einstein theorises that as an object approaches the speed of light then any outside observer would view that time passes more slowly for that object. Relative to the object, a crew member on a spaceship perhaps, the universe slows down and the crew moves through time as normal.

An external observer to the universe may see time flowing at different rates in different places or the universe may exhibit the characteristics of a single particle with a single time vector. As it is difficult to imagine where this external observer would be and quite how it would be seperate from the universe and yet able to percieve it makes this a question that borders on philosophy rather than physics.

The latest scientific journals are beginning to print articles that HINT at an underlying order to quantum physics and may offer a path to uniting it with relativity.

The question is valid, the answers may not be. lol

 

[PJay_A]

Your last response is not the type of respectful intellectual answer I'd expect from you. Please don't downgrade the quality of this conversation by resorting to reference of my points as "nonsence" without explanation. I think I've made strong sound logical points. If you think they are "nonsence", please explain why. Show me where my logic is flawed. If you can and I have no counter explanation, I will quickly admit that my reasoning was in error.

If you really think that you have made sound logical points, you need to get a little more experience with both logic and the factual basis for physics. This has become pointless. adios

It is a sad day for science when areas of scientific research become blocked for further discussion. This is the same attitude mainstream took a few hundred years ago. "What are you... stupid? Everyone knows the Earth's flat?" Or "You herotic saying such things as the planets orbit the sun!" Or, more recently, "You'll rot in hell for suggesting that God's species have evolved!" Believing that we know the Absolute Truth and shunning topics of scientific study because of unconventional ideas is the same attitude Galileo was forced to deal with in his day but the roles have reversed.

Maybe its me. Maybe I chose the wording of my points wrong and you didn't get what I was trying to say. So [taking a deep breath], I will try again.

First point: You said, everything is relevant. You asked that if time is moving faster, then what (relative to what) is time moving faster than? My answer is that time is relevant to itself. Time, according to my model, accellerates faster than all other previous points in time. Since time and space are so interwoven, a place in time is also relative to any given space in the Universe. You acknowledge that the Universe is 4-manifold. There's no augument that 3 of the 4 expand at an accellerating rate. All I'm saying is - If Time is the fourth manifold, it should be expanding and accellerating equal to its 3 sibling manifolds. Everything I've said is measurable and potentially verifiable. Skipping this step on the basis that this idea is unconventional or classifiable (in your mind) as "nonsence" is bad science.

Second point: You said the time-space manifold cannot be cleanly and fashionly separated. My response that I failed to communicate was is that I AGREE WITH YOU on this. Because of the very fact that they cannot be cleanly and fashionly separated is the very reason that drove me to the hypothesis I've reached concerning the behavior of time; as the 4th manifold, it should behave as such: like space, expanding and accellerating.

My imagination translates expanding time with accelleration as time ticking faster because I have no other way to describe what I am saying. Maybe my translation is off, but it's the logic that got me there I am expressing.

 

[DrRocket]

Your last response is not the type of respectful intellectual answer I'd expect from you. Please don't downgrade the quality of this conversation by resorting to reference of my points as "nonsence" without explanation. I think I've made strong sound logical points. If you think they are "nonsence", please explain why. Show me where my logic is flawed. If you can and I have no counter explanation, I will quickly admit that my reasoning was in error.

If you really think that you have made sound logical points, you need to get a little more experience with both logic and the factual basis for physics. This has become pointless. adios

It is a sad day for science when areas of scientific research become blocked for further discussion. This is the same attitude mainstream took a few hundred years ago. "What are you... stupid? Everyone knows the Earth's flat?" Or "You herotic saying such things as the planets orbit the sun!" Or, more recently, "You'll rot in hell for suggesting that God's species have evolved!" Believing that we know the Absolute Truth and shunning topics of scientific study because of unconventional ideas is the same attitude Galileo was forced to deal with in his day but the roles have reversed.

Maybe its me. Maybe I chose the wording of my points wrong and you didn't get what I was trying to say. So [taking a deep breath], I will try again.

First point: You said, everything is relevant. You asked that if time is moving faster, then what (relative to what) is time moving faster than? My answer is that time is relevant to itself. Time, according to my model, accellerates faster than all other previous points in time. Since time and space are so interwoven, a place in time is also relative to any given space in the Universe. You acknowledge that the Universe is 4-manifold. There's no augument that 3 of the 4 expand at an accellerating rate. All I'm saying is - If Time is the fourth manifold, it should be expanding and accellerating equal to its 3 sibling manifolds. Everything I've said is measurable and potentially verifiable. Skipping this step on the basis that this idea is unconventional or classifiable (in your mind) as "nonsence" is bad science.

Second point: You said the time-space manifold cannot be cleanly and fashionly separated. My response that I failed to communicate was is that I AGREE WITH YOU on this. Because of the very fact that they cannot be cleanly and fashionly separated is the very reason that drove me to the hypothesis I've reached concerning the behavior of time; as the 4th manifold, it should behave as such: like space, expanding and accellerating.

My imagination translates expanding time with accelleration as time ticking faster because I have no other way to describe what I am saying. Maybe my translation is off, but it's the logic that got me there I am expressing.

I think it is time for this thread to go to "The Unexplained".

 

[Floridian]

For starts, if time is running faster, then with respect to what is it runniing faster? The concept of "faster" requires some independent concept of time to make sense. So you find yourself running in circles.

For another general relativity presents the universe as a space-time manifold in which you cannot cleanly separate time from space in any global fashion.

Why does it require an independent concept of time, isn't that how we measure all things, distance, velocity, size.
How fast is that spaceship going? To the spaceship next to it going the same speed, it isn't moving.

How big is the Earth? We have to use other objects to compare.

If you could sample the passage of time back then and now and compare them, wouldn't that be enough.

 

[DrRocket]

Why does it require an independent concept of time, isn't that how we measure all things, distance, velocity, size.
How fast is that spaceship going? To the spaceship next to it going the same speed, it isn't moving.

Correct. The concept of speed is meaningful only with respect to some chosen reference frame. But to measure speed you need to be able to measure both position/distance and time. That is simply because speed is a change in position per unit of time.

If you could sample the passage of time back then and now and compare them, wouldn't that be enough.

Without some means of measuring time the words "passage", "time", "back then", "now" and "compare" in your sentence have no meaning. It is absolutely impossible to measure the "rate of passage of time" because that would imply a quantity that would be "change in time" divided by "change in time" and that is 1, without even any units, just 1.

Note that nothing in relativity applies here because this is all happening in a single reference frame.

 

[Boilermaker]

Just a thought. If space is expanding at an accellerating rate since the Big Bang, should then time also be accellerating? According to my thinking here, moments after the Big Bang time should be nearly standing still and has been running faster since and should continue to accellerate as long as space expansion too is accellerating.

Am I thinking logically or are there things I haven't considered?

Posted on: Space what is it?
at 03/11/2009 5:58am


Could it be that time is the Affect of the Expansion on matter in Space and the expansion of the space dimensions instead of a separate dimension?

posted 04/23/2009 04:20:33 PM
Boilermaker wrote:

I believe (now) that dark matter is a substance, the theorized Higg's field. I think that Space is expanding and that brings about time, I believe that time is the expansion and nothing else. I don't believe that time is a separate dimension but the expansion of the three we observe, which is why it's relative while the speed of light is not.


I think it would have been nice if you would have answered the question when I asked it. I have only made a few posts around here and I was hoping one of you would humor me and maybe toss my ideas around and throw me a bone, not chew them up and regurgitate them as your own. I have also stated that I believe that dark matter is the Higg's, I am most likely wrong in what I believe, chances are, since I am not schooled in such matters, but still, I love reading and thinking about science and I was hoping that maybe my questions might be interesting enough to get a comment or a correction or I might get some encouragement or given some tips on some reading material.

I have had questions about time since I was a child and I have asked but never received an answer to the question, what is time? But I came to conclusion that it has to be the expansion itself and then I realized that if this is true and if Gravity affects the expansion that could explain a lot of what we do know. It would also mean that time could be passing slower for inhabitants of more massive planets with stronger gravity. I have noticed that the dark matter surrounds the Galaxies and gives more Gravity, we are seeking for the Higgs with the Large Hadron Collider , think it might be that Dark Matter is the Higgs field? maybe Space is a field of strings which conducts energy as waves and Dark Matter is somehow a denser field of strings and maybe when Energy peaks on the "grid" of strings the strings themselves become entangled with it and that is some sort of Higgs moment in which Energy and Space become one, the space in that moment becomes frozen in a massive particle and does not expand, particles are what happens to energy when time stops, a Frozen wave, Spin is gravity, could that be? could magnetism be spin? if space is strings curled up to transmit energy as waves then this would explain the results of the double slit interference patterns also, because the space would all be spinning as the energy passed, you can't just turn one cog, they all turn.
So, maybe this would also explain the uncertainty principle also, because depending on the energy in the spin, the strings might oscillate and the energy representing the electron would be here and there with each spin, imagine an egg spinning, if all you seen was a blur because the shape made it appear as if the egg was round one turn and pointed the next, you could never be certain what shape it was, but that would be due to the shape and the spin that caused and how you were able to observe it, only as a blur, that doesn't mean it actually is a blur only the photons interacting with your retina make it appear so.

anyway, how much have you considered?

 

[Boilermaker]

Maybe you have and maybe you haven't also considered that Gravity might affect the Expansion of Space which if I am right, would mean that Velocity being equivalent to Gravity would affect Time and since Velocity is equivalent to Mass...well, just consider these things and post more questions in another thread in a month or so, as if they also were yours.

or maybe I never considered that perhaps you are psychic...

regardless, space and time are inseparable, and Time is relevant to the Observer..........could it be that is because the observer may be in various Gravity Wells or traversing Space are various Velocities and experiencing the Expansion rate of Space/Time at various relativistic rates?

ever considered any of that huh?

 

[derekmcd]

Maybe you have and maybe you haven't also considered that Gravity might affect the Expansion of Space

The was a rather smart fellow that proposed something like this in 1916.

which if I am right, would mean that Velocity being equivalent to Gravity would affect Time and since Velocity is equivalent to Mass...

Velocity is equivalent to both gravity and mass???

regardless, space and time are inseparable, and Time is relevant to the Observer..........could it be that is because the observer may be in various Gravity Wells or traversing Space are various Velocities and experiencing the Expansion rate of Space/Time at various relativistic rates?

ever considered any of that huh?

The expansion of space has nothing to do with time dilation... if that's what you are asking us to consider.

 

[Boilermaker]

I am asking you to consider if The Expansion of Space is experienced as Time in the Universe. The "arrow of time" has one direction, as does the Expansion of space. From what I've read, the things that affect time would affect it if it was the Expansion and if gravity affected the expansion.

I don't expect to be correct in my thoughts on such matters as I have had very little schooling in my life and couldn't possibly expect an answer for some of the most perplexing questions we have from myself, but as dumb as I am, I still enjoy thinking and asking questions.

I can't imagine how people can say that space is absolutely nothing, yet it expands, is warped by gravity which allows gravitational lensing...yet it's dumped as the ether.....as a dead concept....how can it have qualities if it is nothing?

occams razor says there is no expansion of space, it's not observed....just the red shift, is there another solution offered for the cause of the redshift?