It's all in plain sight, maybe

[Gibsense]

• 1 light year is one year; The speed of light is Time (the radius continual increase of a hypersphere)
• Travel speed in 3D is limited by the amount of time available (The radius continual increase of the hypersphere)
• Time runs faster in a low mass environment; reduced density of space expansion is a component of Dark Energy: Expansion=faster time=expansion= acceleration
• The speed of expansion is limited by Time; As mass may approach infinite dispersal so Time speed approaches infinity: The universe ends with Time Death (The radius of the hypersphere approaches infinity)
• As the mass density increases time slows; In a Black Hole the star density increase approaches infinity: Time may stop
• Infinite mass density is unstable without time (maybe): The Big Bang is a birth/generation of Time

Maybe

 

[CryptoCraig]

The universe's expansion is NOT accelerating. Dark matter and dark energy is only an equation. I would have come up with many other theories by now if I wasn't blind to this fact.

How would we calculate time dilation on mass density?

Is there already an equation that can do this like the equation that calculates time dilation for approaching the speed of light (is there an actual equation?)?

Do these equations rely on dark matter or dark energy (human created input used to complicate the things we observe)?

 

[billslugg]

All changes due to speed are of the same form and magnitude. Time dilation, mass increase, Lorentz contraction all use the same formula.

 

[CryptoCraig]

All changes due to speed are of the same form and magnitude. Time dilation, mass increase, Lorentz contraction all use the same formula.

Do these equations rely on dark matter or dark energy?

 

[Gibsense]

All changes due to speed are of the same form and magnitude. Time dilation, mass increase, Lorentz contraction all use the same formula.

These formulae are calculated as a function of speed in space. They are a simple relationship between time and distance, basically, Pythagoras as is limited by a 'spacetime interval' I think. SI is just a measurement that can be applied to all relativity regardless of speed comparisons. I can illustrate this if anyone disagrees, as I have done before (it even derives the addition of velocities but so far I have not been able to figure out why)

The speed involved in space expansion (according to my Hypersphere 'model') is the increase in the radius of the hyperball. NB I am not describing the radius of the Observable universe, rather the whole universe as formed by a Hyperball ( a complete sphere not the surface of a hyperball segment). Special Relativity may apply in some way but how because mass in the universe expands at speed 'c' radially (spherical radius). The radius of the observable universe is a surface distance that 'at the edge' to use Bill's description, is expanding at 'c' for any observer but mass objects within it travel at various speeds. This compares to hyperball radial expansion where all mass expands/speeds radially at 'c'.

An analogy may help. A ship in the Pacific may have enough fuel for say 100 miles radius in any direction and the circumference is the observable universe. However, the radius of the universe as a whole is the radius of planet Earth (from the centre to the ship)

A practical solution would be to analyse time in a high-density volume and compare it to time in a low-density volume and expect the answers to support General Relativity. I am vague as the idea is new and only a logical extension of current knowledge. The extremes are time where the mass is far away from mass compared to time at a supermassive black hole. The observable part is just a part of the whole universe's surface of a Hypersphere. However, although the curvature is slight it is probably the curvature of the whole thing and this could show the size 'of the whole thing'. I think it was Myers ( on this forum) who calculated it at 60% but I have no idea whether this is correct. I think it is unlikely to exceed 50% or we would be able to see galaxies of antimatter. Even that would seem much too high should be more like 0.5%. Maybe.

Geez, this is a bit of a messy post.

 

[billslugg]

Time dilation due to gravity, Pound and Rebka did it a long time ago. Been repeated numerous times since, I'm sure.

 

[Atlan0001]

Time dilation due to gravity, Pound and Rebka did it a long time ago. Been repeated numerous times since, I'm sure.

How fast at clock speed is a thought for a human at near 0g of acceleration (the g of humans in space)? At 1/6th Earth g of acceleration (the g of the Moon)? At 1/3rd g of acceleration (the g of Mars)? At 1g of acceleration (the average g of Earth's surface)? For a pilot at 2gs of acceleration? At 4gs of acceleration? At 8gs of acceleration? I won't ask for 9gs or more.

How fast at clock speed does the brain impulses, the brain pulses, work at different gs of gravity, Bill? How fast is the brain clock, Bill? How slow, my friend? It matters. It applies. It is a clock of its own, in its own right. And that clock matters and applies, regarding time and timing, very much, especially to a human at varying speeds and accelerations, or decelerations, in gs in space, on moons and planets, and piloting different crafts at greatly differing gs!

It also matters to robotics and computers, too, the same differing magnitudes of space as differing magnitudes of spacetime. For me way back when, remember it is a matter of past career experience dealing in it, past working experience dealing in it, as well as simply thinking about it.

Two brain clocks will operate at the same speed of time passage. The difference will be in the space between them, thus the spacetime between them, not in them. It is never just point-A and point-B, or clock A and clock B. It is also the Trojan outside and/or between them. A triangle. Always a triangulation inclusive of the unobserved and unobservable third point (third clock)!

Pushing deeper to the point:
=================
Heisenberg principle of uncertainty
=================
'Cantor set' fractality (bottom set fractality)
=================

 

[Gibsense]

Time dilation due to gravity, Pound and Rebka did it a long time ago. Been repeated numerous times since, I'm sure.

Yes, gravity results in time dilation known for 100 years or thereabouts. They confirmed it in 1960.
Are you suggesting it can be used to confirm the effect of the density of mass in the universe's total space volume on time such that as the density is diluted by expansion time runs faster?

In regions of higher mass density, the gravitational field is stronger, causing time to slow down relative to areas with less mass. As the universe expands and the average density of matter decreases, the gravitational influence weakens, potentially causing time to run faster on a cosmic scale.

So, if we consider the universe's expansion and the corresponding decrease in mass density, it would suggest that time might speed up as the universe continues to grow.

Essentially this is a feedback loop: as the universe expands, its mass density decreases, leading to weaker gravitational fields. In turn, this results in time speeding up, which further accelerates the expansion of the universe. This idea aligns with observations of the universe's accelerated expansion; Dark Energy

As the universe expands and mass density decreases, the resulting gravitational dilution causes time to run faster, which in turn accelerates the expansion—a self-reinforcing cycle. Clearly, this could be Dark Energy in Plain Sight

 

[Atlan0001]

Sometimes, as a student of history and histories, I wonder what's the use. Time is nothing more nor less than physics', and cosmic, history and histories. Yet we are told...!

 

[Gibsense]

CryptoCraig was asking how to Test the Hypothesis, maybe this way ...

• Cosmological Observations: By studying the universe's expansion rate over different epochs, we can observe how the rate changes as the universe's density decreases. Data from supernovae, the cosmic microwave background (CMB), and galaxy distributions can provide insights into the relationship between density and expansion.
• Gravitational Time Dilation Experiments: Experiments like the Pound-Rebka experiment or those conducted with atomic clocks at different altitudes can help us understand how time dilation behaves in varying gravitational fields. These principles could be applied to cosmological scales.
• Simulation and Modeling: Advanced computational models of the universe can simulate how changes in mass density affect the passage of time and the rate of expansion. By comparing these models with observational data, we can test the validity of the hypothesis.
• Comparative Studies: As I mentioned before, examining regions of the universe with different mass densities and observing the local expansion rates and time dilation effects could provide supporting evidence. For example, comparing galaxy clusters (high density) with cosmic voids (low density) might yield interesting results.
• Future Observatories: Upcoming space telescopes and observatories, such as the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) and the European Space Agency's Euclid mission, are expected to provide more detailed data on the universe's expansion and the distribution of dark energy.
• Any Ideas?

Much has already been done in this regard, all I have done is pull it together sort of. More interesting to me are my ideas on time that support it. Sleep time now

 

[billslugg]

I'm not sure the average density of the Universe decreases as it expands. The new space that is responsible for the expansion has the Zero Point Energy in it.

 

[Catastrophe]

I don't know what credance you give to Google, but in answer to:

does average density of universe increase on expansion due to zero point energy?

it gives:

No, the average density of the universe does not increase as it expands due to zero-point energy; in fact, the opposite happens - the density of normal matter decreases as the universe expands, while the energy density associated with zero-point energy (often attributed to "dark energy") remains constant, leading to an overall decrease in average density as space expands.

I don't know how up to date this might be.

Cat

 

[billslugg]

I cannot point out any flaws in the AI response. However, if it is a generative response it is giving us the "most popular" response. In such matters, there is a fairly small Woo Woo component so it is probably accurate.
Ask if UFO's are real and see what you get.

 

[Catastrophe]

No, there is no official government conclusion that UFOs are real, extraterrestrial, or a national security threat.

Yes, I see what you mean.

Cat

 

[billslugg]

That is an accurate statement, but we are constantly told the Feds know, but they cover it up. The response only addresses one authority. If AI can get this right I would be very impressed.

 

[CryptoCraig]

What if, from our perspective, the void that we reside in is growing in size, therefore changing how we perceive the universe's expansion rate?

The age of the universe is relative to the location of measurement.

To truly test gravitational time dilation you could use a probe's transmission data rate. The receiver would need to be travelling the same speed and same direction as the probe. Have the probe transmit data as fast as possible near a large mass, like Jupiter. Then do the same, maybe while in transit to Jupiter. Near the planet we'd expect faster data transmission than is possible.

Is gravitational time dilation the reason for light bending in the presence of a mass?

 

[billslugg]

Yes. Actually, time, space, mass and energy are all manifestations of the same "thing" which we don't know what it is. For example, if you go real fast for a long time, you can travel a great distance but your clock runs slower to compensate. You lose time and gain distance. The sum stays the same.

 

[Atlan0001]

Yes. Actually, time, space, mass and energy are all manifestations of the same "thing" which we don't know what it is. For example, if you go real fast for a long time, you can travel a great distance but your clock runs slower to compensate. You lose time and gain distance. The sum stays the same.

So you are the observer observing this time slowing. In what direction is it slowing, say between here and here and Mars (observed) . . . or between here and Alpha Centauri (observed)?

Where is Mars observed to be in SPACETIME, relative to you the observer? Where is Alpha Centauri observed to be time, relative to you the observer?

Where is Mars really rather than where in SPACETIME you observe it to be, relatively speaking? Where is Alpha Centauri really rather than where in SPACETIME you observe it to be? How many clocks are involved each scenario? How many more clocks than the two each line observed by you the observer? There will be at least one more clock than two clocks each scenario, the one you can't and don't observe that clocks time faster and ever faster than the one you do observe clocking time slower and ever slower (matched perfectly to exactitude in the universe equally but oppositely (+)|(-))!

-----------------------

One light second distant from any observer's clock (Hawking's t=0 on the clock) . . . minus (-) one second on the distantly observed clock at the distantly observed location . . . plus (+) one second on the distantly unobserved clock at the distantly unobserved location (Hawking's same t=0 (exact) on the clock as the observer's ("Spooky action at a distance." -- Albert Einstein))!

One light day distant from any observer's clock (Hawking's t=0 on the clock) . . . minus (-) one day on the distantly observed clock at the distantly observed location . . . plus (+) one day on the distantly unobserved clock at the distantly unobserved location (Hawking's same t=0 (exact) on the clock as the observer's ("Spooky action at a distance." -- Albert Einstein))!

Four light years from any observer's clock (Hawking's t=0 on the clock) . . . minus (-) four years on the distantly observed clock at the distantly observed location . . . plus (+) four years on the distantly unobserved clock at the distantly unobserved location (Hawking's same t=0 (exact) on the clock as the observer's ("Spooky action at a distance." -- Albert Einstein)!

 

[Atlan0001]

Illustrating the scenarios, #18:

===============

Wormhole - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

===============

Definition of ASYMPTOTE

a straight line associated with a curve such that as a point moves along an infinite branch of the curve the distance from the point to the line approaches zero and the slope of the curve at the point approaches the slope of the line… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

===============
And just in case it's not enough:

Asymptote - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

===============
Since the Heisenberg principle of uncertainty seems so unacceptable to some for the macrocosmic universe along with all of the above:

Tesseract - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

===============

All relativity will break down, regardless of refusals to recognize any form of breakdown (<<--). And, equally but oppositely, relativity will inexorably build up regardless of refusals to recognize buildups (-->>). Thus two observers and/or two observations, not one, always!

And the rivers of time have opposed flows (<<--) within flows (-->>) (-->>|<<-- (<->|<->)).

The speed of history (of light and time) is a constant. Materials changes, gravities, and so on physics, may vary for reasons [in] time, but not the universally self-similar "spooky action at a distance" singularity and Schrodinger's cat of time ((t='0') (t='0')) (t='1' ('Horizon of Unity') ((t=+1) (t=-1)).

 

[Gibsense]

Yes. Actually, time, space, mass and energy are all manifestations of the same "thing" which we don't know what it is. For example, if you go real fast for a long time, you can travel a great distance but your clock runs slower to compensate. You lose time and gain distance. The sum stays the same.

Yes Einstein was trying to prove time, space and mass were a complex whole (or something like that)

Not that I have Einstein jeans (mine are nearly worn out) pun was intentional. But emboldened by the hypothesis holding up so far could it be that:

Gravity is the shape of the advancing timewave (the surface boundary of an n-sphere undergoing expansion) and the shape somehow produces mass. Some bright spark in the forum might be able to describe this mathematically. I could stick a diagram up to illustrate if needed - if someone asks.
NB AI would not suggest the following, or would it?

1. It reverses cause and effect; shape causes mass not mass causes shape or maybe we should take things more literally:

1. So, if mass exists it simply resists (slows down) the advancing timewave causing gravity wells in the surface expansion. Maybe (?)

1. Or, could expansion cause time? So what causes expansion (yeh dark energy, say stuff from another universe's black hole?maybe