Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Site Notices
10/30/2020 2:42:12 PM
Posted: 2/7/2014 5:18:54 AM EDT
Weird cross post from the religion subforum has me wondering:



Can time ever reach universal 0? As in "before" the big bang?




A few assumptions:

time is a component of 3D space in spacetime

Euclidian space cannot be zero without a mathematically impossible energy density

Ergo if euclidian space cannot be 0, time cannot be 0



Link Posted: 2/7/2014 6:43:15 AM EDT
All that shit went right over my head but, if time stops when we travel the speed of light if we go faster would that not reverse time to an eventual zero?
Redneck Einstein shit right here
Link Posted: 2/7/2014 7:41:49 AM EDT

Yes, but that will only be a point on a timeline. If the universe is infinite, then all possibilities are available including going past 0 into the negative.


How that is proven mathematically; I have no idea...


Good luck with that, Brainiac


Link Posted: 2/7/2014 7:53:15 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ar154all:
Yes, but that will only be a point on a timeline. If the universe is infinite, then all possibilities are available including going past 0 into the negative.

How that is proven mathematically; I have no idea...

Good luck with that, Brainiac

View Quote


It also relies on the idea that time exists everywhere..................and operates under the same rules.

We know that time works differently depending on the speed that you travel.....so we know time can operate in different ways in different situations.  T=0 from our perspective may be a whole lot different than the truth, because we can't conceptualize time from a perspective we don't know the rules governing.
Link Posted: 2/7/2014 8:14:17 AM EDT
Absolutly, time is relevant. When an Electron is observed and recorded it has for all purposes reached zero on the timeline. If you trace it to its source you work in negatives, project its future movement is measured in positives. The fact that the Electron did not exist in particle form before being measured is of no consquence.
Link Posted: 2/7/2014 4:26:21 PM EDT

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By fla556guy:
It also relies on the idea that time exists everywhere..................and operates under the same rules.



We know that time works differently depending on the speed that you travel.....so we know time can operate in different ways in different situations.  T=0 from our perspective may be a whole lot different than the truth, because we can't conceptualize time from a perspective we don't know the rules governing.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By fla556guy:



Originally Posted By ar154all:

Yes, but that will only be a point on a timeline. If the universe is infinite, then all possibilities are available including going past 0 into the negative.



How that is proven mathematically; I have no idea...



Good luck with that, Brainiac







It also relies on the idea that time exists everywhere..................and operates under the same rules.



We know that time works differently depending on the speed that you travel.....so we know time can operate in different ways in different situations.  T=0 from our perspective may be a whole lot different than the truth, because we can't conceptualize time from a perspective we don't know the rules governing.




 
I guess I'm having trouble conceptualizing spacetime as a continuum. Not having lived at relativistic speeds, I don't know what it is to separate time from euclidian space except in the most abstract sense. Is time a dimension outside of 3D space, or is it more like a field that pervades 3D space?




Also, I would think that the universe is definitely finite as far as the boundaries of spacetime go.
Link Posted: 2/7/2014 7:00:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/7/2014 7:06:56 PM EDT by ar154all]



Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NightHawkIX:
 


I guess I'm having trouble conceptualizing spacetime as a continuum. Not having lived at relativistic speeds, I don't know what it is to separate time from euclidian space except in the most abstract sense. Is time a dimension outside of 3D space, or is it more like a field that pervades 3D space?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NightHawkIX:
Originally Posted By fla556guy:






Originally Posted By ar154all:



Yes, but that will only be a point on a timeline. If the universe is infinite, then all possibilities are available including going past 0 into the negative.
How that is proven mathematically; I have no idea...
Good luck with that, Brainiac

It also relies on the idea that time exists everywhere..................and operates under the same rules.
We know that time works differently depending on the speed that you travel.....so we know time can operate in different ways in different situations.  T=0 from our perspective may be a whole lot different than the truth, because we can't conceptualize time from a perspective we don't know the rules governing.




 


I guess I'm having trouble conceptualizing spacetime as a continuum. Not having lived at relativistic speeds, I don't know what it is to separate time from euclidian space except in the most abstract sense. Is time a dimension outside of 3D space, or is it more like a field that pervades 3D space?










Also, I would think that the universe is definitely finite as far as the boundaries of spacetime go.



The universe is expanding.  The distances between systems are growing, thus the mechanism that 'we' must use to traverse those distances will have to require 'non-3D thinking'.  Super massive black holes produce a useable energy that really smart star nerds call "universal entropy".  How this is used and measured, I don't know.  How long they have known about it; I don't know that either.  But it has not 'over-run' the universe, and as we understand things, 'for every action, there is a reaction'.  This seems to mean that for this 'useable energy', there is an unknown energy that is going to counter the energy of the supermassive black holes.  Maybe there are several 'energies' outthere that we have no knowledge of...








So; in my feeble mind, trying desperately to understand (more like rationalize) things that I am sure that "I" wasn't meant to know (as all the 'data' isn't in), this universe will eventually have to 'shrink' or 'warp' or 'fold up' in some way that us unimaginable to us; based on the understanding of physics as we know them.  








A black hole as we understand it takes matter and converts it to heat.  As the universe 'shrinks' (or whatever its gonna do), more and more matter will fall into these holes.  Something other that 'heat creation' has to happen.  distances between stellar targets will shrink.  Whatever technology was developed for "at 'light' speed travel" will become more useful as the trips will be shorter and faster, thus more of an ability to effect time.








Why do I believe this?  GD will never accept the answer. IM me if you want to know.





 







 
Link Posted: 2/7/2014 7:30:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/7/2014 7:31:47 PM EDT by NightHawkIX]


Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ar154all:

The universe is expanding.  The distances between systems are growing, thus the mechanism that 'we' must use to traverse those distances will have to require 'non-3D thinking'.  Super massive black holes produce a useable energy that really smart star nerds call "universal entropy".  How this is used and measured, I don't know.  How long they have known about it; I don't know that either.  But it has not 'over-run' the universe, and as we understand things, 'for every action, there is a reaction'.  This seems to mean that for this 'useable energy', there is an unknown energy that is going to counter the energy of the supermassive black holes.  Maybe there are several 'energies' outthere that we have no knowledge of...


View Quote





So; in my feeble mind, trying desperately to understand (more like rationalize) things that I am sure that "I" wasn't meant to know (as all the 'data' isn't in), this universe will eventually have to 'shrink' or 'warp' or 'fold up' in some way that us unimaginable to us; based on the understanding of physics as we know them.  







A black hole as we understand it takes matter and converts it to heat.  As the universe 'shrinks' (or whatever its gonna do), more and more matter will fall into these holes.  Something other that 'heat creation' has to happen.  distances between stellar targets will shrink.  Whatever technology was developed for "at 'light' speed travel" will become more useful as the trips will be shorter and faster, thus more of an ability to effect time.







Why do I believe this?  GD will never accept the answer. IM me if you want to know.


 





 





I think what you were referring to is dark energy; which has been described to me as almost anti-gravity. Not directly a symmetric particle/force carrier to gravitons, but something else altogether that seems to be counteracting gravity such that the universal expansion is accelerating rather than slowing down. I was doing some digging on this, and I think current theory makes it unlike that there will be mass shrinkage, at least not due to gravity. Instead, they think that the acceleration of the expansion might get to such a point as to cause the heat death, or the big freeze, and eventually the 'big rip' when distances are so great that the 4 fundamental forces of nature can no longer interact resulting in catastrophic disintegration of everything, to maybe a string level.






As far as conceptualizing universal expansion goes, this is what I've always relied on. Imagine a Cartesian graph; while (0,0) to (0,3) doesn't change, the physical grid itself is expanding. So while baryons and things with mass tend to notice things occurring on the 0,0 to 0,3 scale, things like force carriers and energy can experience the change in the expansion of the space itself. Take this with a grain of thought though, it's just what helps me visualize.

 
Link Posted: 2/7/2014 7:53:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/7/2014 7:55:13 PM EDT by ar154all]


Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NightHawkIX:
So; in my feeble mind, trying desperately to understand (more like rationalize) things that I am sure that "I" wasn't meant to know (as all the 'data' isn't in), this universe will eventually have to 'shrink' or 'warp' or 'fold up' in some way that us unimaginable to us; based on the understanding of physics as we know them.  


View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NightHawkIX:





Originally Posted By ar154all:

The universe is expanding.  The distances between systems are growing, thus the mechanism that 'we' must use to traverse those distances will have to require 'non-3D thinking'.  Super massive black holes produce a useable energy that really smart star nerds call "universal entropy".  How this is used and measured, I don't know.  How long they have known about it; I don't know that either.  But it has not 'over-run' the universe, and as we understand things, 'for every action, there is a reaction'.  This seems to mean that for this 'useable energy', there is an unknown energy that is going to counter the energy of the supermassive black holes.  Maybe there are several 'energies' outthere that we have no knowledge of...







So; in my feeble mind, trying desperately to understand (more like rationalize) things that I am sure that "I" wasn't meant to know (as all the 'data' isn't in), this universe will eventually have to 'shrink' or 'warp' or 'fold up' in some way that us unimaginable to us; based on the understanding of physics as we know them.  







A black hole as we understand it takes matter and converts it to heat.  As the universe 'shrinks' (or whatever its gonna do), more and more matter will fall into these holes.  Something other that 'heat creation' has to happen.  distances between stellar targets will shrink.  Whatever technology was developed for "at 'light' speed travel" will become more useful as the trips will be shorter and faster, thus more of an ability to effect time.







Why do I believe this?  GD will never accept the answer. IM me if you want to know.


 





 





I think what you were referring to is dark energy; which has been described to me as almost anti-gravity. Not directly a symmetric particle/force carrier to gravitons, but something else altogether that seems to be counteracting gravity such that the universal expansion is accelerating rather than slowing down. I was doing some digging on this, and I think current theory makes it unlike that there will be mass shrinkage, at least not due to gravity. Instead, they think that the acceleration of the expansion might get to such a point as to cause the heat death, or the big freeze, and eventually the 'big rip' when distances are so great that the 4 fundamental forces of nature can no longer interact resulting in catastrophic disintegration of everything, to maybe a string level.






As far as conceptualizing universal expansion goes, this is what I've always relied on. Imagine a Cartesian graph; while (0,0) to (0,3) doesn't change, the physical grid itself is expanding. So while baryons and things with mass tend to notice things occurring on the 0,0 to 0,3 scale, things like force carriers and energy can experience the change in the expansion of the space itself. Take this with a grain of thought though, it's just what helps me visualize.
 


I don't know if the 'dark energy' and 'universal entropy' are the same thing.  The graphs lines will 'twist'; eventually making 0,0 to 0,3 maybe only 1.5 apart, taking less time to move a greater distance (wormhole area and not somuch as a wormhole tube; I guess is the best way to explain it)





I doubt the universe will tear; I just cannot fathom how that can be measured.  Other forces that are not yet understood have to provide the 'opposite reaction' to the universes expansion.  Just because we don't know what they are, does not mean that they don't exist.




 




 
Link Posted: 2/7/2014 8:21:11 PM EDT
Did I kill this thing?
Link Posted: 2/7/2014 8:33:34 PM EDT
nope, sorry, was preoccupied in the religion forum lol....



Link Posted: 2/7/2014 10:52:10 PM EDT
The start – when time began, when t = 0 – is not actually part of the Big Bang timeline, contrary to popular belief. That’s because the two theories of physics which are at the heart of the Big Bang theory – General Relativity and the Standard Model – are mutually incompatible, and that incompatibility becomes so intolerable that saying anything about what happened in the first Planck second (approx 10-43 second) is meaningless.

Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/51365/big-bang-timeline/#ixzz2si8VQKIv
Link Posted: 2/7/2014 11:04:36 PM EDT

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Oiparhon:


The start – when time began, when t = 0 – is not actually part of the Big Bang timeline, contrary to popular belief. That’s because the two theories of physics which are at the heart of the Big Bang theory – General Relativity and the Standard Model – are mutually incompatible, and that incompatibility becomes so intolerable that saying anything about what happened in the first Planck second (approx 10-43 second) is meaningless.



Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/51365/big-bang-timeline/#ixzz2si8VQKIv
View Quote




 



Yep. Gravity is the dominant force during the planck epoch; but it's operating on a scale that general relativity doesn't describe well. So you need quantum gravity; which quantum mechanics doesn't describe well either. But M theory tries to unify it; but I don't understand and can't conceptualize 4D+7...




I used the term big bang as a reference for what I meant by T=0.
Link Posted: 2/7/2014 11:46:35 PM EDT
I think the short answer is no. At that point in the events about to happen time didn't exist.
Link Posted: 2/7/2014 11:55:45 PM EDT

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By WVNed:


I think the short answer is no. At that point in the events about to happen time didn't exist.
View Quote




 
oscillatory universe model?
Link Posted: 2/8/2014 12:03:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By NightHawkIX:

A few assumptions:
time is a component of 3D space in spacetime
Euclidian space cannot be zero without a mathematically impossible energy density
Ergo if euclidian space cannot be 0, time cannot be 0
View Quote

You might be starting out from incorrect assumptions as well.
The topology of space does not correspond with Euclidean geometry.
Einstein made heavy use of Riemann's geometry in coming up with his theory of relativity. You can see the similarity by looking at the equations.
And, anyway space 4-dimensional Lorentzian manifold rather than even a strictly Riemann geometry
Link Posted: 2/8/2014 12:06:51 AM EDT
Time doesn't exist.  Everything that has been will be, and everything that will be has been.
Link Posted: 2/8/2014 12:12:03 AM EDT
As Adam says "I reject your reality, and substitute my own."
Link Posted: 2/8/2014 12:14:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/8/2014 12:16:01 AM EDT by HoagieShack]
Originally Posted By NightHawkIX:
Weird cross post from the religion subforum has me wondering:

Can time ever reach universal 0? As in "before" the big bang?

A few assumptions:
time is a component of 3D space in spacetime
Euclidian space cannot be zero without a mathematically impossible energy density
Ergo if euclidian space cannot be 0, time cannot be 0

View Quote


There was no big bang.  The universe has always existed.

Or, as this guy says:

Originally Posted By JoshAston:
Time doesn't exist.  Everything that has been will be, and everything that will be has been.
View Quote


Or as the Cylons say:

All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again.
Link Posted: 2/8/2014 12:20:48 AM EDT
Time is irrelevant.

Since time is so fluid and changes depending on where you are in the universe, and how fast you are travelling greatly affect time.

Example:

Gravitational time dilation





Time passes more quickly further from a center of gravity, as is witnessed with massive objects (like the Earth).
Gravitational time dilation is at play for ISS astronauts too, and it has the opposite effect of the relative velocity time dilation. To simplify, velocity and gravity each slow down time as they increase. Velocity has increased for the astronauts, slowing down their time, whereas gravity has decreased, speeding up time (the astronauts are experiencing less gravity than on Earth). Nevertheless, the ISS astronaut crew ultimately end up with "slower" time because the two opposing effects are not equally strong. The velocity time dilation (explained above) is making a bigger difference, and slowing down time. The (time-speeding up) effects of low-gravity would not cancel out these (time-slowing down) effects of velocity unless the ISS orbited much farther from Earth.

The key is that both observers are differently situated in their distance from a significant gravitational mass. The general theory of relativity describes how, for both observers, the clock that is closer to the gravitational mass, i.e. deeper in its "gravity well", appears to go more slowly than the clock that is more distant from the mass. This effect is not restricted to astronauts in space; a climber's time is passing slightly faster at the top of a mountain (a high altitude, farther from the Earth's center of gravity) compared to people at sea level. As with all time dilation, the local experience of time is normal (nobody notices a difference within their own frame of reference). In the situations of velocity time dilation, both observers saw the other as moving slower (a reciprocal effect). Now, with gravitational time dilation, both observers – those at sea level, versus the climber – agree that the clock nearer the mass is slower in rate, and they agree on the ratio of the difference (time dilation from gravity is therefore not reciprocal). That is, the climber sees the sea level clocks as moving more slowly, and those living at sea level see the climber as moving faster.
View Quote
Link Posted: 2/8/2014 12:43:56 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By makeitflyfast:
Time is irrelevant.

Since time is so fluid and changes depending on where you are in the universe, and how fast you are travelling greatly affect time.

Example:

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By makeitflyfast:
Time is irrelevant.

Since time is so fluid and changes depending on where you are in the universe, and how fast you are travelling greatly affect time.

Example:

Gravitational time dilation





Time passes more quickly further from a center of gravity, as is witnessed with massive objects (like the Earth).
Gravitational time dilation is at play for ISS astronauts too, and it has the opposite effect of the relative velocity time dilation. To simplify, velocity and gravity each slow down time as they increase. Velocity has increased for the astronauts, slowing down their time, whereas gravity has decreased, speeding up time (the astronauts are experiencing less gravity than on Earth). Nevertheless, the ISS astronaut crew ultimately end up with "slower" time because the two opposing effects are not equally strong. The velocity time dilation (explained above) is making a bigger difference, and slowing down time. The (time-speeding up) effects of low-gravity would not cancel out these (time-slowing down) effects of velocity unless the ISS orbited much farther from Earth.

The key is that both observers are differently situated in their distance from a significant gravitational mass. The general theory of relativity describes how, for both observers, the clock that is closer to the gravitational mass, i.e. deeper in its "gravity well", appears to go more slowly than the clock that is more distant from the mass. This effect is not restricted to astronauts in space; a climber's time is passing slightly faster at the top of a mountain (a high altitude, farther from the Earth's center of gravity) compared to people at sea level. As with all time dilation, the local experience of time is normal (nobody notices a difference within their own frame of reference). In the situations of velocity time dilation, both observers saw the other as moving slower (a reciprocal effect). Now, with gravitational time dilation, both observers – those at sea level, versus the climber – agree that the clock nearer the mass is slower in rate, and they agree on the ratio of the difference (time dilation from gravity is therefore not reciprocal). That is, the climber sees the sea level clocks as moving more slowly, and those living at sea level see the climber as moving faster.


For the last hour of lurking at this thread, ive been trying to figure out a way to explain it. This is a perfect example. "Time travel" is literally just traveling extremely fast (exponentially beyond our current technological capabilities, unfortunately) in one direction or another through space. It's that simple.

People don't believe it because the differences are only hundredths of milliseconds when comparing Earth to a Satellite, but its still a difference nonetheless. Just wait a few hundred years, we'll get there.

There have been experiments similar to this, where we launched several completely sealed atomic and digital clocks in space, let them orbit around for a  while, then brought them back and compared them to ones on earth (that were all calibrated to each other beforehand). The two in space had elapsed longer amounts of time than what was on the ground. And it has nothing to do with a mechanical failure or a fault due to the environment. Just gravity and "speed" (which can be interpreted as "time").
Link Posted: 2/8/2014 12:56:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/8/2014 1:00:42 AM EDT by HoagieShack]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By scott69916:


For the last hour of lurking at this thread, ive been trying to figure out a way to explain it. This is a perfect example. "Time travel" is literally just traveling extremely fast (exponentially beyond our current technological capabilities, unfortunately) in one direction or another through space. It's that simple.

People don't believe it because the differences are only hundredths of milliseconds when comparing Earth to a Satellite, but its still a difference nonetheless. Just wait a few hundred years, we'll get there.

There have been experiments similar to this, where we launched several completely sealed atomic and digital clocks in space, let them orbit around for a  while, then brought them back and compared them to ones on earth (that were all calibrated to each other beforehand). The two in space had elapsed longer amounts of time than what was on the ground. And it has nothing to do with a mechanical failure or a fault due to the environment. Just gravity and "speed" (which can be interpreted as "time").
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By scott69916:
Originally Posted By makeitflyfast:
Time is irrelevant.

Since time is so fluid and changes depending on where you are in the universe, and how fast you are travelling greatly affect time.

Example:

Gravitational time dilation





Time passes more quickly further from a center of gravity, as is witnessed with massive objects (like the Earth).
Gravitational time dilation is at play for ISS astronauts too, and it has the opposite effect of the relative velocity time dilation. To simplify, velocity and gravity each slow down time as they increase. Velocity has increased for the astronauts, slowing down their time, whereas gravity has decreased, speeding up time (the astronauts are experiencing less gravity than on Earth). Nevertheless, the ISS astronaut crew ultimately end up with "slower" time because the two opposing effects are not equally strong. The velocity time dilation (explained above) is making a bigger difference, and slowing down time. The (time-speeding up) effects of low-gravity would not cancel out these (time-slowing down) effects of velocity unless the ISS orbited much farther from Earth.

The key is that both observers are differently situated in their distance from a significant gravitational mass. The general theory of relativity describes how, for both observers, the clock that is closer to the gravitational mass, i.e. deeper in its "gravity well", appears to go more slowly than the clock that is more distant from the mass. This effect is not restricted to astronauts in space; a climber's time is passing slightly faster at the top of a mountain (a high altitude, farther from the Earth's center of gravity) compared to people at sea level. As with all time dilation, the local experience of time is normal (nobody notices a difference within their own frame of reference). In the situations of velocity time dilation, both observers saw the other as moving slower (a reciprocal effect). Now, with gravitational time dilation, both observers – those at sea level, versus the climber – agree that the clock nearer the mass is slower in rate, and they agree on the ratio of the difference (time dilation from gravity is therefore not reciprocal). That is, the climber sees the sea level clocks as moving more slowly, and those living at sea level see the climber as moving faster.


For the last hour of lurking at this thread, ive been trying to figure out a way to explain it. This is a perfect example. "Time travel" is literally just traveling extremely fast (exponentially beyond our current technological capabilities, unfortunately) in one direction or another through space. It's that simple.

People don't believe it because the differences are only hundredths of milliseconds when comparing Earth to a Satellite, but its still a difference nonetheless. Just wait a few hundred years, we'll get there.

There have been experiments similar to this, where we launched several completely sealed atomic and digital clocks in space, let them orbit around for a  while, then brought them back and compared them to ones on earth (that were all calibrated to each other beforehand). The two in space had elapsed longer amounts of time than what was on the ground. And it has nothing to do with a mechanical failure or a fault due to the environment. Just gravity and "speed" (which can be interpreted as "time").


Actual time travel has nothing to do with motion, or acceleration.  What you're talking about is time dilation, or temporal relativity.  Real time TRAVEL involves neither of those things.  It has more to do with traveling into another dimension, and then back into this one.  This is space-time, and the other dimension (though not the only other dimension concerned) is time-space.  Time space can be moved through just like space time, but when moving through time space, the spatial location corresponds to a temporal event (or more specifically, temporal state) in space time.  And in order to do it you have to electrically isolate an object from the rest of the universe, which is the tricky part.
Link Posted: 2/8/2014 1:37:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/8/2014 1:56:16 AM EDT by NightHawkIX]




Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Oiparhon









You might be starting out from incorrect assumptions as well.




The topology of space does not correspond with Euclidean geometry.




Einstein made heavy use of Riemann's geometry in coming up with his theory of relativity. You can see the similarity by looking at the equations.




And, anyway space 4-dimensional Lorentzian manifold rather than even a strictly Riemann geometry
View Quote







 



Ok, I had to just give myself a crash course in manifold space and I now have a headache. Thanks...






















Can I get cliff notes on how I can use this to conceptualize 3D+1?

















Ok, correct me if my interpretation is wrong, which I'll pose as a question:



Can there be a time differential between X1,Y1,Z1 and X2,Y2,Z2 from the perspective of an observer at X3,Y3,Z3 that is equidistant from 1,2 and observing both simultaneously?












Edit 2: so everything that will ever happen at infinitesimally small X,Y,Z coordinates has "already happened?" But we're trapped in a linear flow of time and can only observe what's going on at XYZ for our reference timepoint (Each point of X,Y,Z contains (T0-Tinfinity)?)



 
Link Posted: 2/8/2014 3:55:03 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NightHawkIX:

  Ok, I had to just give myself a crash course in manifold space and I now have a headache. Thanks...


Can I get cliff notes on how I can use this to conceptualize 3D+1?


Ok, correct me if my interpretation is wrong, which I'll pose as a question:
Can there be a time differential between X1,Y1,Z1 and X2,Y2,Z2 from the perspective of an observer at X3,Y3,Z3 that is equidistant from 1,2 and observing both simultaneously?




Edit 2: so everything that will ever happen at infinitesimally small X,Y,Z coordinates has "already happened?" But we're trapped in a linear flow of time and can only observe what's going on at XYZ for our reference timepoint (Each point of X,Y,Z contains (T0-Tinfinity)?)
 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NightHawkIX:
Originally Posted By Oiparhon

You might be starting out from incorrect assumptions as well.
The topology of space does not correspond with Euclidean geometry.
Einstein made heavy use of Riemann's geometry in coming up with his theory of relativity. You can see the similarity by looking at the equations.
And, anyway space 4-dimensional Lorentzian manifold rather than even a strictly Riemann geometry

  Ok, I had to just give myself a crash course in manifold space and I now have a headache. Thanks...


Can I get cliff notes on how I can use this to conceptualize 3D+1?


Ok, correct me if my interpretation is wrong, which I'll pose as a question:
Can there be a time differential between X1,Y1,Z1 and X2,Y2,Z2 from the perspective of an observer at X3,Y3,Z3 that is equidistant from 1,2 and observing both simultaneously?




Edit 2: so everything that will ever happen at infinitesimally small X,Y,Z coordinates has "already happened?" But we're trapped in a linear flow of time and can only observe what's going on at XYZ for our reference timepoint (Each point of X,Y,Z contains (T0-Tinfinity)?)
 


Everything you experience has already happened.
Link Posted: 2/8/2014 1:30:57 PM EDT

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By HoagieShack:
Everything you experience has already happened.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By HoagieShack:



Originally Posted By NightHawkIX:


Originally Posted By Oiparhon



You might be starting out from incorrect assumptions as well.

The topology of space does not correspond with Euclidean geometry.

Einstein made heavy use of Riemann's geometry in coming up with his theory of relativity. You can see the similarity by looking at the equations.

And, anyway space 4-dimensional Lorentzian manifold rather than even a strictly Riemann geometry


  Ok, I had to just give myself a crash course in manifold space and I now have a headache. Thanks...





Can I get cliff notes on how I can use this to conceptualize 3D+1?





Ok, correct me if my interpretation is wrong, which I'll pose as a question:

Can there be a time differential between X1,Y1,Z1 and X2,Y2,Z2 from the perspective of an observer at X3,Y3,Z3 that is equidistant from 1,2 and observing both simultaneously?









Edit 2: so everything that will ever happen at infinitesimally small X,Y,Z coordinates has "already happened?" But we're trapped in a linear flow of time and can only observe what's going on at XYZ for our reference timepoint (Each point of X,Y,Z contains (T0-Tinfinity)?)

 




Everything you experience has already happened.
I get the feeling that your creepy statement is in fact correct....

 
Link Posted: 2/8/2014 2:40:32 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NightHawkIX:
I get the feeling that your creepy statement is in fact correct....  
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NightHawkIX:
Originally Posted By HoagieShack:
Everything you experience has already happened.
I get the feeling that your creepy statement is in fact correct....  


You can't experience anything as it happens.  It takes time for light, sound, and pressure to make it to your receptors.  It then takes time for your receptors to send signals to your brain.  Then your brain has to translate the signals.  While this may seem instantaneous, it actually takes nanoseconds to accomplish.  Therefore everything you experience has already happened.

Or, our entire perception of reality is completely wrong and time doesn't exist at all.
Link Posted: 2/8/2014 2:54:01 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JoshAston:


You can't experience anything as it happens.  It takes time for light, sound, and pressure to make it to your receptors.  It then takes time for your receptors to send signals to your brain.  Then your brain has to translate the signals.  While this may seem instantaneous, it actually takes nanoseconds to accomplish.  Therefore everything you experience has already happened.

Or, our entire perception of reality is completely wrong and time doesn't exist at all.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JoshAston:
Originally Posted By NightHawkIX:
Originally Posted By HoagieShack:
Everything you experience has already happened.
I get the feeling that your creepy statement is in fact correct....  


You can't experience anything as it happens.  It takes time for light, sound, and pressure to make it to your receptors.  It then takes time for your receptors to send signals to your brain.  Then your brain has to translate the signals.  While this may seem instantaneous, it actually takes nanoseconds to accomplish.  Therefore everything you experience has already happened.

Or, our entire perception of reality is completely wrong and time doesn't exist at all.



Time literally DOES NOT exist.  Its always just "now."  Past and future are literally figments of our imagination.
Link Posted: 2/8/2014 3:05:39 PM EDT
Irrespective of what we perceive, I was wondering about the existence of 0 in absolute time
Link Posted: 2/9/2014 12:12:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/9/2014 2:29:10 PM EDT by Boomholzer]
Originally Posted By NightHawkIX:
Weird cross post from the religion subforum has me wondering:

Can time ever reach universal 0? As in "before" the big bang?

A few assumptions:
time is a component of 3D space in spacetime
Euclidian space cannot be zero without a mathematically impossible energy density
Ergo if euclidian space cannot be 0, time cannot be 0

View Quote



Not as far I understand or can read.
The important part that you already touched on is that observed expansion is accelerating voiding previous estimations per singularity BB theory and relativistic mass/energy theory.
Quantum aspects are not relevant for the OP in macro model.

Yes,  Euclidian space can be energy zero in micro model. In macro: the missing link being gravity and how to relate this. It's mass relative, mass and energy are post-classically interchangeable (E-RT) and classically well defined (Newton, Galileo)   Gravity itself is not energy and in SRT some Newtonian classical elements are varied IN time/distance. SRT in itself voids aspects of Euclidian space but you didn't state aspects of velocity or reference plane. SO good.  But SRT exists within the constant C model and modern physics understands multiple force models that can capture light...but only in mass/energy model.

Ergo if euclidian space cannot be 0, time cannot be 0
View Quote

Space is nothing, time is relative, distance is not always a physical constant. Gravity is the open aspect.

Link Posted: 2/19/2014 7:44:22 PM EDT
You are visualizing 'time' as linear....a straight infinite line....
Think of it as a figure 8....universe expands...then contracts...
Link Posted: 2/21/2014 8:02:17 PM EDT
Time would be 4d. Depending on your frame of reference it could be anything.
Link Posted: 3/22/2014 6:04:17 PM EDT
The answer is necessarily yes. If the universe is about 14 billion years old, then 14 billion years ago time was zero. Now, the matter of how big the universe was at the beginning and what occurred before the beginning is the big question. The idea that all matter existed in a super-condensed state (probably pure energy through the matter-energy relationship set forth by Einstein) in a volume with dimensions less than or equal to a Planck Length is the really weird part, IMHO.
Link Posted: 4/18/2014 12:28:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/18/2014 12:31:57 PM EDT by murph1329]
Originally Posted By NightHawkIX:
Weird cross post from the religion subforum has me wondering:

Can time ever reach universal 0? As in "before" the big bang?

A few assumptions:
time is a component of 3D space in spacetime
Euclidian space cannot be zero without a mathematically impossible energy density
Ergo if euclidian space cannot be 0, time cannot be 0

View Quote




in my opinion the only real numbers are .111 repeating to .999 repeating.  nothing can ever equal 0 or 1

whole numbers represent time standing still therefore cannot be achieved
Link Posted: 4/26/2014 1:41:11 PM EDT
Treating time as a 'dimension' is strictly a mathematical convenience.
It allows physical 3-dimensions AND time to be manipulated under the same model.
Instead of a 3x3 matrix space you call time another 'dimension' and use 4x4 vectors.

There are all sorts of ways to create often very large matrices to describe complicated systems.
Some problems that appear simple can result in so many 'dimensions' it becomes imposable to solve them.
The actual motion of a clock pendulum with a flex joint instead of a pivot makes a very complicated system model.

One of the ways we get around these problem in actual systems is by 'time stepping' and solving the system and small
the answers can be viewed as a continuum.
That is how we got to the moon.





Top Top