universal time clock?

[dabiznuss]

Now, here's the question in cosmology and astrophysics the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate, Seemingly each galaxy cluster would have the perspective to be in the middle of the expansions. Meaning no matter which galaxy cluster you would occupy all other clusters of galaxies would seem as though they were receding away from you. Now, here's the question since each cluster of galaxies seems to be at the center of the universe according to there perspective, if the universe continues to expand, when the only thing left to see in the sky is your cluster of galaxies, would this not happen at one universal time when all galaxy clusters are confined by there horizon? Wouldn't it lead to a universal Time clock? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now, here's the question in cosmology and astrophysics the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate, Seemingly each galaxy cluster would have the perspective to be in the middle of the expansions. Meaning no matter which galaxy cluster you would occupy all other clusters of galaxies would seem as though they were receding away from you. Now, here's the question since each cluster of galaxies seems to be at the center of the universe according to there perspective, if the universe continues to expand, when the only thing left to see in the sky is your cluster of galaxies, would this not happen at one universal time when all galaxy clusters are confined by there horizon? Wouldn't it lead to a universal Time clock? <br />Posted by dabiznuss</DIV></p><p>You will have to explains this one a bit more.&nbsp;Why do you think that something would happen everywhere simultaneously ?&nbsp; What do you think simultaneously means, given the relativity of simultaneity of the theory of relativity?&nbsp; And why, given that the universe is not perfectly homogeneous do you think there might be a useful synchronization mechanism here anyway ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dabiznuss]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You will have to explains this one a bit more.&nbsp;Why do you think that something would happen everywhere simultaneously ?&nbsp; What do you think simultaneously means, given the relativity of simultaneity of the theory of relativity?&nbsp; And why, given that the universe is not perfectly homogeneous do you think there might be a useful synchronization mechanism here anyway ? <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Well regarding current mainstream Physics all galaxies clusters would have the perspective of being or seem to be in the center of the universe's expansion Correct? They all recede from one another in the same fashion, (the further they are from one another the faster they recede) correct again? (im just asking). wouldn't it be foolish to think that we where in the center of the expansion of the universe? I know it contradict's the special theory of relativity, but explains alot to. Yet, in Q.M. simultaneously has a useful definition time appears in quantum mechanics to be invariant. Yet, CMBR seem's to be almost to homogeneous.... Physics regards the beginning of the universe as a single instance of time, why not the end be that way? I do have many other reasons why this seems like a perfect idea it's just that i have worked to hard in the last two years to go into great details about this. I just wanted to throw out a very brief idea about a small part of my theory and see the reaction, that's all.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well regarding current mainstream Physics all galaxies clusters would have the perspective of being or seem to be in the center of the universe's expansion Correct? They all recede from one another in the same fashion, (the further they are from one another the faster they recede) correct again? (im just asking). wouldn't it be foolish to think that we where in the center of the expansion of the universe? I know it contradict's the special theory of relativity, but explains alot to. Yet, in Q.M. simultaneously has a useful definition time appears in quantum mechanics to be invariant. Yet, CMBR seem's to be almost to homogeneous.... Physics regards the beginning of the universe as a single instance of time, why not the end be that way? I do have many other reasons why this seems like a perfect idea it's just that i have worked to hard in the last two years to go into great details about this. I just wanted to throw out a very brief idea about a small part of my theory and see the reaction, that's all. <br />Posted by dabiznuss</DIV></p><p>In relativistic quantum mechanics time behaves just as it does in special relativity.&nbsp; Unfortunately no theory exists that is compatible with both general relativity and quantum mechanics.&nbsp; But our understanding of time and gravity is based on relativity, not quantum mechanics.&nbsp; So to use quatum mechanics as justification for avoiding the relativity of simultaneity is not valid.</p><p>As far as the notion that the end of the universe might end in a contraction, essentially a reversal of the Big Bang to end in a single point in space-time, that is one possibility that has been considered.&nbsp; It is called the Big Crunch.&nbsp; At this time, given the observational evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating it does appear viable.&nbsp; But prior to that evidence being found in the late 1990s, the Big Crunch would have been a conclusion if the mass in the universe were large enough to halt expansion and start a contraction.</p><p>Your statement to the effect that it would be foolish to think that we are in a special place in the&nbsp;universe, is a widely accepted principle of cosmology.&nbsp; It is called the Cosmological Principle and is fundamental to most modern theories of the universe.&nbsp; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle&nbsp; It does not contradict either special or general relativity, and was certainly accepted by Einstein.&nbsp; I am not sure&nbsp;but I think Einstein may have been the first to suggest this principle.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dabiznuss]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In relativistic quantum mechanics time behaves just as it does in special relativity.&nbsp; Unfortunately no theory exists that is compatible with both general relativity and quantum mechanics.&nbsp; But our understanding of time and gravity is based on relativity, not quantum mechanics.&nbsp; So to use quatum mechanics as justification for avoiding the relativity of simultaneity is not valid.As far as the notion that the end of the universe might end in a contraction, essentially a reversal of the Big Bang to end in a single point in space-time, that is one possibility that has been considered.&nbsp; It is called the Big Crunch.&nbsp; At this time, given the observational evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating it does appear viable.&nbsp; But prior to that evidence being found in the late 1990s, the Big Crunch would have been a conclusion if the mass in the universe were large enough to halt expansion and start a contraction.Your statement to the effect that it would be foolish to think that we are in a special place in the&nbsp;universe, is a widely accepted principle of cosmology.&nbsp; It is called the Cosmological Principle and is fundamental to most modern theories of the universe.&nbsp; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle It does not contradict either special or general relativity, and was certainly accepted by Einstein.&nbsp; I am not sure&nbsp;but I think Einstein may have been the first to suggest this principle.&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Thanks for that link, yet i have been studying alot of "MOND" lately,&nbsp;what i have came up with is that the size of our observable universe and the factor by which it is accelerating or in fact causing the acceleration R/c^2&nbsp; is closely related to Milgroms very low critical acceleration with,&nbsp;which the force of gravity starts to act as the Square root of the mass times G. ( MOND's critical acceleration 1.2 X 10^-8). I can go into more details about this scale factor R later, yet how can the observable universe have anything to do, with the way stars move in the outer edge of the galaxies? What is your status as far as physics goes, are you a teacher, what degree have you earned, or are you just an amateur? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks for that link, yet i have been studying alot of "MOND" lately,&nbsp;what i have came up with is that the size of our observable universe and the factor by which it is accelerating or in fact causing the acceleration R/c^2&nbsp; is closely related to Milgroms very low critical acceleration with,&nbsp;which the force of gravity starts to act as the Square root of the mass times G. ( MOND's critical acceleration 1.2 X 10^-8). I can go into more details about this scale factor R later, yet how can the observable universe have anything to do, with the way stars move in the outer edge of the galaxies? What is your status as far as physics goes, are you a teacher, what degree have you earned, or are you just an amateur? <br />Posted by dabiznuss</DIV></p><p>But MOND is a modification of Newton's classical theory of gravitation that is proposed to explain anamolies in galactic rotation rates.&nbsp; Newtons's theory won't do you much good at the scales of the universe, as it assumes an 3 dimensinal Euclidean space plus time as the backdrop.&nbsp;</p><p>http://www.space.com/common/community/forums/?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3ac7921f8b-94ec-454a-9715-3770aac6e2caForum%3ab1675c48-7c2d-4e4d-b6eb-8790beb68f8bDiscussion%3a4c9abd0c-9769-4411-b1d6-35cf4d2bebea&plckCategoryCurrentPage=0</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dabiznuss]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But MOND is a modification of Newton's classical theory of gravitation that is proposed to explain anamolies in galactic rotation rates.&nbsp; Newtons's theory won't do you much good at the scales of the universe, as it assumes an 3 dimensinal Euclidean space plus time as the backdrop.&nbsp;http://www.space.com/common/community/forums/?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3ac7921f8b-94ec-454a-9715-3770aac6e2caForum%3ab1675c48-7c2d-4e4d-b6eb-8790beb68f8bDiscussion%3a4c9abd0c-9769-4411-b1d6-35cf4d2bebea&plckCategoryCurrentPage=0 <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Jacob Berkenstien has done a great deal to make MOND applicable with the general and special theories or relativity. Just with introducing weird twin fields and a couple other things ( nothing more outlandish than M-theory). What ever you want to call M-theory, Super String theory, ect... To me seems to forget Einstein basic assumption That the laws of physics will not change due to the background of space, their is no special place to do physics, space such as 4 dimension, 5, 6, 11, or what ever it may be could incorporate the idea of an entity with out us making the&nbsp;assumption about&nbsp;its dimensions (this is just my opinion on a way to mathematical, non imaginative theory). <--- this is not what are discussion is about so, moving on. So in your opinion Dark Matter is a better preference for you than MOND? Dark matter and energy has to be something we just don't understand yet, Dark particles and things of that nature i believe must have a logical more fundamental understanding! Berkenstien is to smart of a person to have wasted his time in an area that he thought would go no where. Do you have any information regarding the process, in regards to &nbsp;when&nbsp;Peter Van Nieuwenhuizen said " Bosons turn into fermions, and than fermions back to Bosons and space moves a little" ? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Jacob Berkenstien has done a great deal to make MOND applicable with the general and special theories or relativity. Just with introducing weird twin fields and a couple other things ( nothing more outlandish than M-theory). What ever you want to call M-theory, Super String theory, ect... To me seems to forget Einstein basic assumption That the laws of physics will not change due to the background of space, their is no special place to do physics, space such as 4 dimension, 5, 6, 11, or what ever it may be could incorporate the idea of an entity with out us making the&nbsp;assumption about&nbsp;its dimensions (this is just my opinion on a way to mathematical, non imaginative theory). <--- this is not what are discussion is about so, moving on. So in your opinion Dark Matter is a better preference for you than MOND? Dark matter and energy has to be something we just don't understand yet, Dark particles and things of that nature i believe must have a logical more fundamental understanding! Berkenstien is to smart of a person to have wasted his time in an area that he thought would go no where. Do you have any information regarding the process, in regards to &nbsp;when&nbsp;Peter Van Nieuwenhuizen said " Bosons turn into fermions, and than fermions back to Bosons and space moves a little" ? <br />Posted by dabiznuss</DIV></p><p>I don't&nbsp;like MOND at all.&nbsp; It is an ad hoc theory and ugly.&nbsp; I am not wild about dark matter either, but I think it has a better chance to pan out than MOND -- depending on what particle physicists learn and whether dark matter can be identified.&nbsp; But only time, more data, and better theory will tell us the truth.&nbsp; It could be either and may well be neither.</p><p>I have no idea what Nieuwenhuizen was talking about or who he is.&nbsp;&nbsp;I will be extraordinarily surprised (but pleasantly so)if the answer comes from string theory or M theory any time soon.&nbsp; Thus far work on those theories has produced some very impressive mathematics, but not much physics.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well regarding current mainstream Physics all galaxies clusters would have the perspective of being or seem to be in the center of the universe's expansion Correct?</DIV></p><p>Correct.&nbsp; This is the isotropic nature of our observable universe.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They all recede from one another in the same fashion, (the further they are from one another the faster they recede) correct again? (im just asking).</DIV></p><p>Correct again.&nbsp; Once again, the isotropic nature of the universe couple with Hubble's Law.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>wouldn't it be foolish to think that we where in the center of the expansion of the universe?</DIV></p><p>I'm not sure if I would call if foolish.&nbsp; However, I might consider it a bit presumptuous considering the our observable universe has no preferred direction. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I know it contradict's the special theory of relativity, but explains alot to.</DIV></p><p>This has nothing to do with Special Relativity.&nbsp; You are dealing with the Friedmann-Lamaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric which is an exact solution to the Einstein Field Equations in General Relativity. [EDIT:&nbsp; nevermind... i see you were referring to simultaneity]</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yet, in Q.M. simultaneously has a useful definition time appears in quantum mechanics to be invariant.</DIV></p><p>DrRocket already touched on this in regards to Special Relativity.&nbsp;&nbsp; You can see Special Relativity in action in regards to Quantum Mechanics with changing decay rates and particle creation of sub-atomic particles in particle accelerators.&nbsp; Quantum Eelectrodymanics is essentially the marraige of Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yet, CMBR seem's to be almost to homogeneous.... Physics regards the beginning of the universe as a single instance of time, why not the end be that way?</DIV></p><p>The universe is only homogenous on the grandest of scales.&nbsp; Physics doesn't really address the beginning of the universe unless the discussion is of pure speculation.&nbsp; We, quite simply, don't have the tools to tackle that question... yet.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I do have many other reasons why this seems like a perfect idea it's just that i have worked to hard in the last two years to go into great details about this. I just wanted to throw out a very brief idea about a small part of my theory and see the reaction, that's all. <br /> Posted by dabiznuss</DIV><br /><br />I'm not entirely clear on what your idea is.&nbsp; The only universal time clock that I can think of is entropy.&nbsp; Everything else is dependent on your reference frame.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[dabiznuss]

<p><font size="1">I'm not entirely clear on what your idea is.&nbsp; The only universal time clock that I can think of is entropy.&nbsp; Everything else is dependent on your reference frame.</font>&nbsp;</p><p><font size="2">This was part of the idea, that everything else is a part of your reference frame, yet every galaxy cluster no matter where you are in the universe thinks its at the center of the acceleration of the universe. So all galaxy clusters have the reference frame of being the center of the universe and when our galaxy cluster is the only visible thing in the night sky b/c everything else is covered by the cosmological horizon this will indeed happen to every cluster of galaxies at that moment also. This comes from the fact that all clusters think they are in they center and they all recede from another in a proportional manner. ( yet, if this does not seem apparent than we can possibly use entropy, if we are also talking about horizons, b/c entropy is related to the area of the horizon, and the area of the horizon related to temperature and energy, which in turn, is related to the surface gravity of the object behind the horizon. Though i'm not sure the mathematical approach nor is it what im working on it's just a current thought). The main purpose is to get you to see the idea above in more detail and than if it works logically in your minds what is a mathematical approach to something of this nature? &iquest; ?</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p>I think you will find some of the mathematical answers you need in this paper:</p><h1 class="title"><font size="3"> The Return of a Static Universe and the End of Cosmology</font></h1><p>Lawrence M. Krauss (1,2), Robert J. Scherrer (2) ((1) Case Western Reserve University, (2) Vanderbilt University) </p><div class="dateline">(Submitted on 2 Apr 2007 (v1), last revised 27 Jun 2007 (this version, v3))</div> <blockquote> <span class="descriptor">Abstract:</span> We demonstrate that as we extrapolate the current LambdaCDM universe forward in time, all evidence of the Hubble expansion will disappear, so that observers in our "island universe" will be fundamentally incapable of determining the true nature of the universe, including the existence of the highly dominant vacuum energy, the existence of the CMB, and the primordial origin of light elements. With these pillars of the modern Big Bang gone, this epoch will mark the end of cosmology and the return of a static universe. In this sense, the coordinate system appropriate for future observers will perhaps fittingly resemble the static coordinate system in which the de Sitter universe was first presented. </blockquote><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm not entirely clear on what your idea is.&nbsp; The only universal time clock that I can think of is entropy.&nbsp; Everything else is dependent on your reference frame.&nbsp;This was part of the idea, that everything else is a part of your reference frame, yet every galaxy cluster no matter where you are in the universe thinks its at the center of the acceleration of the universe. So all galaxy clusters have the reference frame of being the center of the universe and when our galaxy cluster is the only visible thing in the night sky b/c everything else is covered by the cosmological horizon this will indeed happen to every cluster of galaxies at that moment also. This comes from the fact that all clusters think they are in they center and they all recede from another in a proportional manner. ( yet, if this does not seem apparent than we can possibly use entropy, if we are also talking about horizons, b/c entropy is related to the area of the horizon, and the area of the horizon related to temperature and energy, which in turn, is related to the surface gravity of the object behind the horizon. Though i'm not sure the mathematical approach nor is it what im working on it's just a current thought). The main purpose is to get you to see the idea above in more detail and than if it works logically in your minds what is a mathematical approach to something of this nature? &iquest; ? <br /> Posted by dabiznuss</DIV></p><p>I understand the scenario you are presenting.&nbsp; If current theories are our best description of the universe, then your scenario is the most widely accepted as to the fate of the universe.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>What I don't understand is what this has to do with a "Universal Time Clock".&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I understand the scenario you are presenting.&nbsp; If current theories are our best description of the universe, then your scenario is the most widely accepted as to the fate of the universe.&nbsp;&nbsp;What I don't understand is what this has to do with a "Universal Time Clock".&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Dabzinuss seems to be proposing that "all the lights will go out" everywhere at the same time. That all clusters of galaxies will become "island universes" at the same time, due to the accelerating rate of expansion and its proportional nature.</p><p>I would have thought that the differeing distances between clusters would mean that this would not happen everywhere at "the same time" anyway.&nbsp; For instance, our cosmic event horizon or light horizon is currently 16 billion light years away and due to the accelerating expansion it is moving towards us, from our point of view. The light from any event that happens now, at a co-moving distance of more than 16 billion light years, will never reach us.</p><p>As the clusters continue to recede from each other there will come a time when our closest neighbouring cluster recedes past that limit as the limit itself moves towards us, and then we will only be able to see the galaxies in our own cluster.</p><p>If we assume that any other cluster in the universe is subject to the same accelerating rate of expansion, and thus their current light horizon is also 16 billion light years from <em>them</em>, the question is, is their nearest neighbouring cluster doing to disappear at the same time ours does? I would think not, as the clusters are not regularly distributed.</p><p>We also have the problem arising from the relativity of simultaneity, which seems to make the whole point moot anyway.</p><p>But, if we forget about the irregular distribution of clusters and the relativity of simultaneity and assume, for arguments sake, that somehow every cluster could assume that the rest of the universe went dark at the same time as each other, what good is it as a "universal" time clock? Seeing as no information can pass between the clusters anymore, how can the clock be considered to be universal?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[dabiznuss]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I understand the scenario you are presenting.&nbsp; If current theories are our best description of the universe, then your scenario is the most widely accepted as to the fate of the universe.&nbsp;&nbsp;What I don't understand is what this has to do with a "Universal Time Clock".&nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /><br />It would pertain to the fact the all clusters of galaxies are some how interconnected, such as the idea E. Mach had about inertia and how it originated from all of the celestial bodies combined that contributed to this effect which we cal inertia. Irregularity should not matter at all since Once again all clusters seemingly play the role of the center of expansion. If we were to run this scenario backwards since "all the light would go out at one time" we possible could invoke a uniform clock, just a thought though...... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It would pertain to the fact the all clusters of galaxies are some how interconnected, such as the idea E. Mach had about inertia and how it originated from all of the celestial bodies combined that contributed to this effect which we cal inertia. Irregularity should not matter at all since Once again all clusters seemingly play the role of the center of expansion. If we were to run this scenario backwards since "all the light would go out at one time" we possible could invoke a uniform clock, just a thought though...... <br /> Posted by dabiznuss</DIV></p><p>I suppose if the universe was perfectly homogenous and isotropic even at the local level and Special Relativity didn't exist...&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[siriusdogstarone]

<p>my theory of universal time clocks&nbsp; is like&nbsp; that of atoms ticking away indepentanly of each other in a seperate</p><p>time&nbsp; frame of miilseconds from each other . making up&nbsp; the universal&nbsp; time clocks that&nbsp; the universe&nbsp; runs on.</p><p>Like the planets and stars&nbsp; that float in&nbsp; outer space , a lot&nbsp; are dead planets&nbsp; floating then you have those that</p><p>have active gases&nbsp; and are still reviting from the big bang explosion&nbsp; that happened . These planets&nbsp; and stars</p><p>stand still in time&nbsp; , until there is a culminated&nbsp; reaction or explosion of&nbsp; said gases acting as catalyst&nbsp; in moving </p><p>planets along . <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-cool.gif" border="0" alt="Cool" title="Cool" />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#339966">E To The Square</font> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<br />Interesting article in this (bi) week's Science News on this subject for those with access. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[R1]

<p><font size="2">ddabiznuss, apparently everything&nbsp;is interconnected,</font></p><p><font size="2">&nbsp;However, time flows at different rates throughout the universe.&nbsp;&nbsp;Even time in the ISS space station ticks at a different speed than here on the ground.&nbsp; I don't know by what factor or which formula one would use, but proximity to a gravitational field slows down time.&nbsp; The rate of the flow of time is really wobbly, non consistent and spooky.</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Interesting article in the (bi) week's Science News on this subject for those with access. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I looked up and went through the two papers referenced in that article.</p><p>http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0708/0708.2743v2.pdf</p><p>http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0805/0805.4452v1.pdf</p><p>Frankly, the essay in Science News was better than the actual papers.&nbsp; The papers are interesting but rather loosely written, and I think there are some problems with their mathematics.&nbsp;&nbsp;The authors in fact refer to their arguments as heuristic, which basically means that they are suggestive but do not meet the standards of rigorous mathematics.&nbsp; </p><p>I am a bit confused by the papers, but I think there may be a problem with their decomposition of a finite "superspace" into the tensor product that they use to develop their ideas.&nbsp; The dimensions don't add up the way I would expect.</p><p>While it is not quite clear what mathematical structures they are using, the dimension of the tensor product of two vector spaces or free modules is the dimension of the factors.&nbsp; So if time is one-dimensional as one would suppose then their "rest space' would have the same dimension as the superspace, and since everything in sight is finite, hence finite-dimensional, it would be the whole thing.</p><p>The remainder of the work seems to be based on change of basis within this tensor product "decomposition".&nbsp; </p><p>Interesting article, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this to replace general relativity.&nbsp; But perhaps they will take their heuristics ideas and refine them further to produce something.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>ddabiznuss, apparently everything&nbsp;is interconnected,&nbsp;However, time flows at different rates throughout the universe.&nbsp;&nbsp;Even time in the ISS space station ticks at a different speed than here on the ground.&nbsp; I don't know by what factor or which formula one would use, but proximity to a gravitational field slows down time.&nbsp; The rate of the flow of time is really wobbly, non consistent and spooky.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by john1r</DIV></p><p>Both gravitational time dilation and kinematic time dilation affect the ISS's clocks when compared to ours.&nbsp; IIRC, clocks onboard GPS satellites are sped up by 38 microseconds per day compared to ours.&nbsp; This page on the Hafele Keating experiement has the formulae to apply.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[R1]

<p><font size="2">wow.&nbsp; It's about time! <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /></font></p><p><font size="2">So many thanks, people.&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[R1]

<p><font size="2">dabiznuss, although every cluster seems to be at the center of expansion, the distant lights would not go off at the same time everywhere, because clusters and superclusters are of various different sizes.&nbsp; Things may get dark&nbsp;around small cluster #1 on the left, but galaxies in giant supercluster #2 way on the right would still see plenty of things.</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font size="2">It's an interesting topic, I think, and It brings me right back to the hard time I had trying to understand time now, so distant from the big bang moment around t=0.&nbsp; Due to the fact that the speed of the flow of time depends on gravitational proximity and/or motion&nbsp;in the case of the kinematic effect, I believe hypothetical clocks at different points of the universe would each have an absolutely different time.&nbsp; In this situation, I am thinking of a clock near a black hole, a clock within dark matter but not so close to a black hole, and a clock outside of dark matter and close to or perhaps inside a dark energy void.&nbsp; </font></p><p><font size="2">Close to the beginning (around 0<t<1), the three clocks were synchronized, but now when it is the year 2008 on earth, all three clocks in the universe are entirely different.&nbsp; A hypothetical person at each clock would therefore claim that the time elapsed since the big bang is totlly different from the&nbsp;two other people.&nbsp;Is this not correct?&nbsp; the one near the black hole may read 1:00pm, the one far from the hole, but within dark matter (our approximate locaton) may read 5:00pm, and the one far away from dark matter or any matter, would probably read 7:00 pm.&nbsp;&nbsp; This is due to the fact that time slows down&nbsp;due to&nbsp;kinematic and/or gravitational influences. The tmes I listed are fictitious, of course, merely to illustrate my point that time is flowing, or passing, at different speeds throughout the universe.&nbsp; So time is really out of whack, in any 2 points in space with different values of these influences.&nbsp; Within your home, your clock in your living room and your&nbsp;clock in your kitchen are somewhat safe, because the relevant influences of the earth's gravity and their motion are both very similar&nbsp;on both of them.</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dabiznuss]

Say for example the universe expands all the way until the atoms begin to get ripped apart by the expansion, would that then happen&nbsp; in one region first? I don't think it would, although differentgalaxy's and clusters of galaxies are different sizes, i don't think their size and structure would play any role at all b/c it is the space in-between them that is causing this effect!!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dabiznuss]

<p>We do not have a formula for which the law of conservation&nbsp; of gravity will take place, unless the system is spatially isolated. This will eventually be achieved due to the expansion of the universe. The conservation of energy and mass should decrease greatly, b/c of the negative gravitational potential energy. The total mass & energy of the observable universe is greater when systems of gravitation are farther apart than when they are closer. Yet this still does not provide us with any crucial implications. Yet, with a lower total Mass-energy its rotational motion should increase, and continue to increase.... than there could be a point when the system starts to emit signals at an ever increasing rate possible to the point of 10^-43 sec. obviously at this point it would become a black-hole, but wait.......</p><p>Since the light it is emitting (the photon's) have no place to go and there would be a decrease in power drawn from the source. So a black hole would not be attained yet something very strange would have to take place... I don't know what&iquest;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[R1]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#000080">Say for example the universe expands all the way until the atoms begin to get ripped apart by the expansion, would that then happen&nbsp; in one region first? I don't think it would, although differentgalaxy's and clusters of galaxies are different sizes, i don't think their size and structure would play any role at all b/c it is the space in-between them that is causing this effect!!! <br /></font>Posted by dabiznuss</DIV><br /><br /><font size="2">It seems like the rip will start at the regions of least gravitation, (in the future), and end at the places of greatest gravity and slowest time (in the past).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I know, it seems strange, but it's&nbsp;where time is the slowest and most lagging: in the past&nbsp;...at or near event horizons, deep inside black holes' spacetime wells.&nbsp; I am not sure if the black holes are exceptionally different, I wonder what happens to black holes during the Big Rip? (I think I asked that a long time ago, but I don't know yet)</font></p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;(I'm not sure I understand your other post)&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>