Some Issues with Time

[Gibsense]

Some issues with Time.

Just to make a start on this difficult subject.

• In our 3d space cannot sensibly be considered absolute as movement modifies the perception of each- other's clock time quite apart from the experiments in the past that looked for a spatial Ether.
• A more holistic view over all spacetime to date provides a different view. The Age of the Universe for example is an absolute measurement
• It can be argued that if some object ‘Z’ has never been accelerated (thought experiment) then it has only time as a measure (absolute) whereas any object (say a galaxy) that has moved in space will display a different time to that of ‘Z’
• Similarly, there is no way of thinking of space as absolute unless of course nothing ever moved (?)
• So, taking an average of all galactic movements maybe could be used to identify “still”.
• The diagram (!) below I made using letters so it is inadequate and crude. However, the circle represents the universe as if it were a sphere (dropping 2 dimensions). The horizontal line is distance and the vertical is time.
• Imagine both lines passed through the centre of the circle (through the origin) so that they became diameters. A radius pointing up then is time and the point where it intersects the circle is “now” in our universe and its length is expressed as years. Similarly, a horizontal radius from the origin (The Big Bang) shows the distance in light years.
• The radius is a valid ‘spacetime Interval’. It describes Special Relativity, time dilation and distance dilation. Explanation: Take any radius – preferably in the top hemisphere- and draw it to intersect the circle. Then by dropping a line down from the intersection to the horizontal line and similarly a horizontal line from the intersection to the vertical line: you have all the geometry needed to use Pythagoras to determine the dilation of time and distance for any spacetime position determined from where you drew the radius. I heard Brian Cox mention its validity on TV. It may have been as a result of my communication with his office – or not. I just thought it was original and worth mentioning as an original description of the Special Relativity theory.
• 
  
• The diagram has miraculously disappeared so reading the above will have to do. Ok so if we can hold the imaginary circle and radius in our head it is clear that where the vertical radius intersects the circle can be considered as our place in time and space. But any position on the circle could be considered, in reality, our place in space and time. If we had simply stood still (with no spatial movement) the radius would represent the direction in space-time that time pointed.
• So, if you follow me so far (!) time can be represented by any radius and more, by any radius within a sphere. This relegates time to a process occurring in 4 dimensions rather than the 4th dimension itself.
• Time then becomes to us (as a flatlander equivalent) the result of the universe expanding: that is a radial dimension of 1 second =299792458km
• Note though that time running in an opposite direction would be perceived to be negative. On opposing sides of the sphere then their time would appear to be negative; although to them it is positive (if you exist anywhere on the circle time would appear positive)
• Antimatter is an electron in time negative for example. So, the other side of the n-sphere is antimatter (?)

 

[Gibsense]

Some issues with Time.

Just to make a start on this difficult subject.

• In our 3d space cannot sensibly be considered absolute as movement modifies the perception of each- other's clock time quite apart from the experiments in the past that looked for a spatial Ether.
• A more holistic view over all spacetime to date provides a different view. The Age of the Universe for example is an absolute measurement
• It can be argued that if some object ‘Z’ has never been accelerated (thought experiment) then it has only time as a measure (absolute) whereas any object (say a galaxy) that has moved in space will display a different time to that of ‘Z’
• Similarly, there is no way of thinking of space as absolute unless of course nothing ever moved (?)
• So, taking an average of all galactic movements maybe could be used to identify “still”.
• The diagram (!) below I made using letters so it is inadequate and crude. However, the circle represents the universe as if it were a sphere (dropping 2 dimensions). The horizontal line is distance and the vertical is time.
• Imagine both lines passed through the centre of the circle (through the origin) so that they became diameters. A radius pointing up then is time and the point where it intersects the circle is “now” in our universe and its length is expressed as years. Similarly, a horizontal radius from the origin (The Big Bang) shows the distance in light years.
• The radius is a valid ‘spacetime Interval’. It describes Special Relativity, time dilation and distance dilation. Explanation: Take any radius – preferably in the top hemisphere- and draw it to intersect the circle. Then by dropping a line down from the intersection to the horizontal line and similarly a horizontal line from the intersection to the vertical line: you have all the geometry needed to use Pythagoras to determine the dilation of time and distance for any spacetime position determined from where you drew the radius. I heard Brian Cox mention its validity on TV. It may have been as a result of my communication with his office – or not. I just thought it was original and worth mentioning as an original description of the Special Relativity theory.
• 
  
• The diagram has miraculously disappeared so reading the above will have to do. Ok so if we can hold the imaginary circle and radius in our head it is clear that where the vertical radius intersects the circle can be considered as our place in time and space. But any position on the circle could be considered, in reality, our place in space and time. If we had simply stood still (with no spatial movement) the radius would represent the direction in space-time that time pointed.
• So, if you follow me so far (!) time can be represented by any radius and more, by any radius within a sphere. This relegates time to a process occurring in 4 dimensions rather than the 4th dimension itself.
• Time then becomes to us (as a flatlander equivalent) the result of the universe expanding: that is a radial dimension of 1 second =299792458km
• Note though that time running in an opposite direction would be perceived to be negative. On opposing sides of the sphere then their time would appear to be negative; although to them it is positive (if you exist anywhere on the circle time would appear positive)
• Antimatter is an electron in time negative for example. So, the other side of the n-sphere is antimatter (?)

Remember these are just my thoughts and not any peer-reviewed stuff

 

[rankin]

Your eloquent essay would be more accurate. Simplify your view. Where does time come from and leave Eisteing out of it. Nature does not have Einstein as an assistant. Also consider time as quantized.
Lets see what you come up with,

Good luck

 

[Gibsense]

Your eloquent essay would be more accurate. Simplify your view. Where does time come from and leave Eisteing out of it. Nature does not have Einstein as an assistant. Also consider time as quantized.
Lets see what you come up with,

Good luck

Thank you for your compliment.
It seems to me that time is only a process happening in 4D. That is, it is the expansion of the universe that drives time. That the universe is like a shockwave travelling outward as a sphere within a landscape of static Quantum material. Static until the universe interacts and changes stuff. (collapses stuff). The shockwave is the universe and the universe only exists as a NOW.
The evidence for this view? Well, 1 light year =1 year. If the age of the universe is expressed as light years (as a radius describes a circumference. The circumference - represents the total universe) then for each additional second there is an additional distance added to the size of the universe which equals a Hubble Constant of 71 approximately. This represents the Hubble Constant derived from the CMB. If we use data from the Hubble Telescope and add in some 360,000 extra light years - (pre-CMB) we get about 67 for the Hubble Constant - if my memory is good. That explains the two 'different results puzzle'. The figures I have used are approx I cannot be sure I remember exactly but you can work them out yourself anyway. That the numbers are from two different methods I think defends any circular argument accusation
Bear in mind this is just my opinion!

No evidence for the following - it's just me going wild
We could expand this into fantasy and try to show that our universe is supported by a feeding Black Hole driving us into a connected White Hole forcing the expansion of space - from a different universe

For some science fiction, we could pretend that the shockwave is not unique and is followed by many more, each one slightly different as each modifies the Quantum stuff left by the proceeding one. This gets around the grandfather paradox. Go back in the following shockwave universe and murder your ancestors; as you were born in the older universe shockwave version you survive to carry out the evil deed.

Sorry got carried away!

 

[Classical Motion]

I use square empty space and omnipresent time and length for my discernment of observations and measurements. This is in direct conflict with present theory. But it is much more enjoyable and satisfying. All can understand. PhD not required. And no secret handshakes.

And when we get different results, with changes of duration, angles and distances.....for the same dynamic......it would be expected and accounted for. I have no problem with this, never have. The change in duration, angle and distance always changes the observation and measurement, even of a sphere. Or a ring. Only an imaginary stationary single point can ignore motion relativity.

Not seeing the relative difference would not only puzzle, but would frighten me. It would remove any and all surety. About existence.

Of course it always depends on your/the reference, but thinking the EM has the same constant velocity to all observers is denying all reason. We cannot measure that velocity. There is no proof of such a statement. Hopefully in the future with better instruments we might confirm this dogma. I believe it will be false. At this present time, the change in phase and frequency proves it for me. Especially with a continuous wave function.

The only method, the only way to measure a constant velocity from all emitters......is with a perfectly stationary point in space. To all others it(c) too..... is relative. Simple interaction mechanics.

Only mathematics can deny reality. And only that by changing time and length. Cosmic math only works correctly with omnipresent time and length.

And it all fits with square math and intermittent light. Duty cycle light. Duty cycle light explains red shift in the proper manner AND explains the illusion of expansion. Space-width modulation.

But I have a twisted mind and probably need more medication.

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

Your eloquent essay would be more accurate. Simplify your view. Where does time come from and leave Eisteing out of it. Nature does not have Einstein as an assistant. Also consider time as quantized.
Lets see what you come up with,

Good luck

Why would any sane person consider time to be quantized? Time and space form a continuum meaning one cannot exist without the other. Have you never heard of time dilation or length contraction ?
I dont think we can leave Einstein out of it, when discussing special relativity.

 

[Gibsense]

Why would any sane person consider time to be quantized? Time and space form a continuum meaning one cannot exist without the other. Have you never heard of time dilation or length contraction ?
I dont think we can leave Einstein out of it, when discussing special relativity.

Well, there's the rub!
Space is considered Quantized by some clever people. Sort of equidistant points linked by a sort of network. Not a good description... Will try to find some authorative reference for your consideration

 

[Gibsense]

Quantum Spacetime:

Reimagining the Cosmos: New Theory Unites Einstein’s Gravity With Quantum Mechanics

A radical theory that consistently unifies gravity and quantum mechanics while preserving Einstein’s classical concept of spacetime is announced today in two papers published simultaneously by UCL (University College London) physicists. Modern physics is founded upon two pillars: quantum theory o

scitechdaily.com

 

[Gibsense]

Your eloquent essay would be more accurate. Simplify your view. Where does time come from and leave Eisteing out of it. Nature does not have Einstein as an assistant. Also consider time as quantized.
Lets see what you come up with,

Good luck

Good advice thanks I will do that soon - this place has the advantage of taking thought forward and old ideas evolve.

 

[Gibsense]

Just a thought. It seems reasonable to suggest that time is digital. Measurement methods of length and time are interchangeable therefore if a length is digital we might expect time to be also (simply because in my ideas time is the distance our universe is moved in a space of 4 dimensions).
We should notice that I should not say that time is the 4th dimension. It is a radial direction existing in 4 spatial dimensions. If for example, we are a hypersphere (the surface of a hyper-ball) Then some directions in the surface will correspond to some directions of the radius ie all dimensions of time or space have no unique claim to a direction in embedding space!

 

[Greenlight]

i think space(distance) and energy get quantized by time itself, and time is accelerating.

 

[Atlan0001]

Gibsense,
You've done well in developing a picture and model of your own but its badly fragmented and disconnected in my view. You've noticed the thread, "From a drop of water...." with many and varying -- connected! -- posts. Instead of so many new threads, often on same subjects or connected subjects, why not develop one continuing thread of posts of the more connected items instead of a splay of threads.

Just a suggestion. I discovered I didn't have to do 600 and more new threads to say and present what I wanted to say and present. In "From a drop of water...." I built up (was allowed) a "go to" single series picture and model framework of many puzzle pieces and parts . . . and corrections to it all, too. It is easier to be followed that way to get across to others what you want to get across to them of your own "mind's eye" observations and realizations.

Not that I've stopped threading needles when I though it important enough to go with something like a stand-alone piece (which usually ends up anyway with a connection in "From a drop of water....")!

Like I said, nothing more than a suggestion to another apparent modeler. If you do take my suggestion up and go with it, WITH MUCH THOUGHT BEHIND IT, NAME IT (TITLE IT) WELL!

 

[Gibsense]

Gibsense,
You've done well in developing a picture and model of your own but its badly fragmented and disconnected in my view. You've noticed the thread, "From a drop of water...." with many and varying -- connected! -- posts. Instead of so many new threads, often on same subjects or connected subjects, why not develop one continuing thread of posts of the more connected items instead of a splay of threads.

Just a suggestion. I discovered I didn't have to do 600 and more new threads to say and present what I wanted to say and present. In "From a drop of water...." I built up (was allowed) a "go to" single series picture and model framework of many puzzle pieces and parts . . . and corrections to it all, too. It is easier to be followed that way to get across to others what you want to get across to them of your own "mind's eye" observations and realizations.

Not that I've stopped threading needles when I though it important enough to go with something like a stand-alone piece (which usually ends up anyway with a connection in "From a drop of water....")!

Like I said, nothing more than a suggestion to another apparent modeler.

Hi Atlan,
I had assumed that the Moderators would prefer separate posts as various aspects. I may be wrong

 

[Atlan0001]

Hi Atlan,
I had assumed that the Moderators would prefer separate posts as various aspects. I may be wrong

Right you are in thinking "posts"! "Separate posts", Gib, aren't separate "threads" for most every "post"! As I suggest, think about putting your picture, your model universe you are apparently trying to build (as I see it), altogether in one sewing for the most part.

As I said, though, if you do choose to do it, NAME IT (TITLE IT) WELL! Harry's best -- in my view -- is titled simply, "CYCLIC UNIVERSE."

 

[Gibsense]

Right you are in thinking "posts"! "Separate posts", Gib, aren't separate "threads" for most every "post"! As I suggest, think about putting your picture, your model universe you are apparently trying to build (as I see it), altogether in one sewing for the most part.

But Atlan I have loads more to think about and add -
How special relativity fits in tight
How time and space trade off as spacetime intervals etc one thing leads to another, lol

 

[Atlan0001]

But Atlan I have loads more to think about and add -
How special relativity fits in tight
How time and space trade off as spacetime intervals etc one thing leads to another, lol

Look back through "From a drop of water...." and Harry's "CYCLIC UNIVERSE," among others. Loads more posts in them thought about and added to gradually form (to paint) someone's single picture of the cosmopolis . . . to gradually model a universe (u), universes (multiverse), and Universe (U) (all told, altogether, 'Cosmopolis'). It's a great game but you can't tie up all the loose ends -- have all the loose spokes come together -- without a hub. As the saying goes, 'Cosmopolis' will not be built in a day, and not well done without a lot of "rethink" and "redo."

 

[Gibsense]

Look back through "From a drop of water...." and Harry's "CYCLIC UNIVERSE," among others. Loads more posts in them thought about and added to gradually form (to paint) someone's single picture of the cosmopolis . . . to gradually model a universe (u), universes (multiverse), and Universe (U) (all told, altogether, 'Cosmopolis'). It's a great game but you can't tie up all the loose ends -- have all the loose spokes come together -- without a hub.

ok may take your advice

 

[Classical Motion]

Time has physical characteristics. It has duality like mass, analog and quantum(digital) properties. That's because time is a flux also. A flux of durations that form a continuous stream.

Like electrical current or a beam of light. A flux of bits. But a time bit can be as large as you want. Or as small as you can slice. And unlike current or light flux, time flux is in phase. It's an unbreakable harmony. Harmony of time. A constant silent invisible harmony of motion.

Time also has an unbreakable inertia. So strong that it can not be altered.

We count and inventory time by slicing it. It's application is digital. So we can relate to it. Chunks of time. Durations. There are also chunks of energy and chunks of mass. And believe it or not, chunks of light. These chunks of light expand and become the largest structures in this cosmos. From a single little chunk. Which is another verification of only one singular time, and one singular length.

 

[Gibsense]

Time also has an unbreakable inertia. So strong that it can not be altered.

In this thread measurements of time and distance are interchangeable. The inertia of time can only be measured in these units. It is impossible to identify any variation in 'speed'. In other words, 'inertia' in our perception cannot be verified or discounted.

We count and inventory time by slicing it. It's application is digital. So we can relate to it. Chunks of time. Durations. There are also chunks of energy and chunks of mass. And believe it or not, chunks of light. These chunks of light expand and become the largest structures in this cosmos. From a single little chunk. Which is another verification of only one singular time, and one singular length.

is based on Planck size and has little to do with how we might measure it to call it 'digital'.

Like electrical current or a beam of light. A flux of bits. But a time bit can be as large as you want. Or as small as you can slice. And unlike current or light flux, time flux is in phase. It's an unbreakable harmony. Harmony of time. A constant silent invisible harmony of motion.

And the evidence of this is?

 

[Gibsense]

Time has physical characteristics. It has duality like mass, analog and quantum(digital) properties. That's because time is a flux also. A flux of durations that form a continuous stream.

Yes, time is a flux as an assumption that looks fairly safe. But Why? That's the issue.

 

[mokeshame]

Time is 0 dimensional accelation. Zero dimensions means the whole system, same as absolute acceleration.
In zero dimensions Time=speed=distance. Speed and distance are also the same. Nothing can hit eachother unless the whole system changes. And thats reality. What we see is just an expression of it. A changing system that expressing/simulation a local response.

Zero dimension though is not al linear construct. It uses al kinds of patterns to influence the system with an particle that can work in itself. We dont have al lot of particles in our world. Just one that can work into itself to change itself. But with that said you can also not say its the same particle. Its nothing and everything at the same time!

 

[Classical Motion]

Pardon me. I didn't realize this thread was restricted to space time. I refuse to consider it any longer. Pardon the interruption.

 

[Atlan0001]

Pardon me. I didn't realize this thread was restricted to space time. I refuse to consider it any longer. Pardon the interruption.

Time isn't that dimensionally restrictive. Argue its dimensionality (its multi-dimensionality) at will!