Is Space a Function of Tme Flow?

[Questioner]

Is space a function of time flow?

Does time flow support space?

A mass field is a [gradient] 'region' of reduced space and slowed time.
The slower time passes/flows the less [the more contracted the] space [is].

Another question is 'why would it be a function of specifically 3D space?'

The expansion of space could be caused by pressured time flow.
Time might be flowing at its maximum rate & trying to exceed that pushes/forces more space into existence. Space can only sustain a maximum time-speed?

Time is what allows decoherence [& recoherence?] to happen,
& space is [the necessary?] where it happens?

Aside: If everything was recohering would that be going 'backwards in time'? 'Un-eventing? Lost from observation? Forgotten? A withdrawal of causality? Extracted from the event sequence?

Maybe the universe is where [when?] decoherences have relationships with one another? Overlapping [entangling?] superpositions becoming the same unified function/wave that encompasses both space and time.

 

[billslugg]

Time and space are related. If, for example, you spend your lifetime zipping* around the universe at, say, .99c you could visit stars about 350 light years away and return to Earth. But when you got home you would have missed out on 600 years of history. Gone - you'll never be able to experience it. In other words, you traded distance for time. Distance and time are somehow made of the same thing.

*Zooming only goes to .9c, after that it is "zipping".

 

[Atlan0001]

Time and space are related. If, for example, you spend your lifetime zipping* around the universe at, say, .99c you could visit stars about 350 light years away and return to Earth. But when you got home you would have missed out on 600 years of history. Gone - you'll never be able to experience it. In other words, you traded distance for time. Distance and time are somehow made of the same thing.

Not the way it works, Bill. There is no trading distance for time (the way you would have it above). Squeeze space between points, you squeeze time between points. Expand space between points, you expand time between points. The pivot is 'c' (300,000kps) but you come no closer to the horizon than '0'- point rest. What velocity (in the universe at large and small) is the free float of relative 0-point rest, Bill?

 

[Gibsense]

The speed of light describes a limitation to how much distance things can travel in, say, one second.
Special Relativity describes the trade-off. You can get more distance if you use up more time. From a 4d viewpoint time and distance are the same and set at 90 degrees to each other. If you head in one direction then you cannot go so far in the other direction.

The limitation is set by what becomes available from spatial expansion: a relationship between time and distance (maybe). Likewise the speed of light (not a function of the properties of light but simply the 1:1 relationship between distance and time), Maybe.

This is true if the expansion is circular or n spherical. Maybe
Because the speed of light is a 1:1 relationship between only distance (space) and time it is a constant no matter how 'fast' inflation occurs or how 'fast' space expansion happens the speed of light will always be 'c'. Amusingly if the passage of expansion were to 'slow' to a stop and reverse we would not experience anything happening to the speed of light. Maybe.

There is an exception though. If the universe is spinning (likely I think) then the equatorial bulge would distort the 1:1 relationship between distance and time (?)
So, some regions may have slightly different physics (?) Perhaps this might identify the universe's orientation/spin. They would also have a small (?) disagreement about the age of the universe etc. Maybe

Sorry I got carried away

 

[Gibsense]

Is space a function of time flow?

Does time flow support space?

A mass field is a [gradient] 'region' of reduced space and slowed time.
The slower time passes/flows the less [the more contracted the] space [is].

Another question is 'why would it be a function of specifically 3D space?'

The expansion of space could be caused by pressured time flow.
Time might be flowing at its maximum rate & trying to exceed that pushes/forces more space into existence. Space can only sustain a maximum time-speed?

Time is what allows decoherence [& recoherence?] to happen,
& space is [the necessary?] where it happens?

Aside: If everything was recohering would that be going 'backwards in time'? 'Un-eventing? Lost from observation? Forgotten? A withdrawal of causality? Extracted from the event sequence?

Maybe the universe is where [when?] decoherences have relationships with one another? Overlapping [entangling?] superpositions becoming the same unified function/wave that encompasses both space and time.

I Love this post, after reading it more carefully. Please forgive the isolated quotes

• "Is space a function of time flow ?" If time can be converted to distance ie a light year is the same mathematical measurement as a year then time and distance can be interpreted by a 4th-dimensional observer as the same thing. So time flow and space flow go hand in hand. If you have one then you have the other.
• The less space added then the less time added and vice versa
• If the addition of space is directly proportional to the addition of time then the increase of one forces the increase of the other
• "Time is what allows decoherence [& recoherence?] to happen,
  & space is [the necessary?] where it happens?" This, maybe, is a killer statement. One can imagine a ripple of water passing over sand on a beach. The wave disturbs some sand particles (decoherence). Anomalous to our universe passing over a pre-existing quantum world.
• Even if time went backwards it would still be positive (but would appear negative to a 3d observer) There would be no going back in time in this universe, however, the 'ripple over the sand' may well be followed by another ripple universe. In this case, jumping back to the following ripple might be possible before the decoherence to change the future. If multiple ripples (universes) are sequential, the future already exists. A preview might provide a high degree of accurate prophecy (not 100% as our decoherence ripple will modify the future). I I Love that post!

 

[Classical Motion]

"Is space a function of time flow?" No. Space is a function of absence. Absence of all physicality.

Space is the true zero. Some men have trouble defining zero. But ignorance is filled with ego. Not reason.

"Does time flow support space? No. Space is the absent of time. Space is naked, it doesn't have anything. Including time.

Time doesn't come from space, it comes from motion. All motion is made from omnipresent time AND length. Time is the duration of e's motion. The length of e is fixed and therefore the duration of e is fixed.

Until this is realized, hollywood science will prevail. Today's science will become man's greatest folly.

Time and length are set, because the motion of e is set. e is the father of all motion, even G motion.

e and the field from it.............is the only thing that has motion. All physicality comes from e and it's field.

e is the true stars of the universe. e is the only physical entity in this universe. There is no other. e is the only physical singularity. A universe of singularities.

Physicality is the only common thing to all realities. Reality is much, much more than just physicality. Reality is far above any science.

When man correctly understands physicality, it will only crack the book about reality.

Physicality will NOT answer your questions about life and existence. Solving physicality will give you more questions about existence, not less.

Solving physicality will not answer/explain the past or the future. It will only explain your temporary physicality. That's all this knowledge will do. It will not explain creation. Or death.

When we understand matter, it will show us how utterly ignorant we truly are. But only a few will appreciate it. Physicality will disappoint most. Because it's simple. And square and firm. UN-breakable. UN-bendable. It never budges. It is error-less. And you can't insert an error in it.

It's the one thing man will never tom dick and harry with. It's impossible to flux up. Even man can't pollute it. Or disgrace it.

And that's the reason you should seek it. It is not a probability, it is a construction. e is a device.

 

[Questioner]

Time is a measure of change and space is the areana where change [can] happen(s).

Time flow/speed creates a/the potential for change & the greater the potential the more areana (space) is conjured/compelled into being?

And without time flow (time halt; singularity) there is no opportunity for change and the areana size (space) is zero.

Does time flow 'inflate' space like a kind of 'pressure'?

Is there a maximum time flow pressure and what might happen if that were exceeded?

 

[Questioner]

The 'when potential' (flow of 'nows') (requires?) creares the 'where potential', namely space.

 

[Greenlight]

yes, it is the time flow rate that defines the distances via the relative, but constant speed of light.

meter has been defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second.

 

[Questioner]

The speed of light is a fixed/constant relationship between time and distance/space.
So if one reduces the time potential one reduces the space/distance potential.
So one can't have space that exceeds the capacity of EM to occupy/traverse it?

Does space require some minimum actual occupational/traversing EM to exist?

Einstein said it is the phase changes of EM that are the tick toc of time.

Gravity waves travel at the speed of light, which is an edge-on compression & expansion of space itself.

Time communicates [coordinates? links?] with other time through space &
space communicates [coordinates? links?] with other space through time?

 

[Gibsense]

The speed of light is a fixed/constant relationship between time and distance/space.
So if one reduces the time potential one reduces the space/distance potential.
So one can't have space that exceeds the capacity of EM to occupy/traverse it?

Look at my new icon diagram. The vertical is time and the horizontal is distance. Notice there is a triangle or two. It expresses special relativity.

We are only (right now) concerned with the top hemisphere. Notice the red radius arrow pointing from the origin to the circumference. This represents an object travelling near 'c'. The drop-down line (from the intersection of the red line with the circumference to the horizontal) indicates the distance travelled in 1 second - if we read from the origin to the drop-down line intersection with the horizontal axis. We know 1 sec = approx 300,000 kilometres. 1second (time vertical) = radius.
Using Pythagoras we obtain the dilated distance (as per the usual SR formula) and time dilation if we use the intersection to the vertical.

I apologise for my poor explanation (tired). An easier way is to use the flatlander analogy. Assume a 4d person can view this; what would he see? He would see all radii as distance and instead of passing time he would see spatial expansion as a circle (sphere).
Just a 4d sphere (circle) getting bigger.

The point is it is the process of expansion that is time. If you label both axes as distance (a 4d reality) it is obvious. We only "see" 3d dimensions and assume time is the 4th (an error).

So, regarding your post, If you have an expanding universe in 4 dimensions draw it as a circle and label the vertical as distance. Then assign time as the expanded distance radially. Special Relativity is not challenged mathematically but it is conceptually. I will try to do a better job in a later post but will leave this thought:

The idea can be applied to the universe as a whole (Special Relativity)

 

[Atlan0001]

Sigh!

Page 21 - From a drop of water....

Page 21 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

forums.space.com

(post #523!)