Before the Big Bang

I think I see where he's coming from.

It's possible to look at time as a sequence of three-dimensional states, in which case the sequence is the dimension, but not quite like the other three dimensions.

:D
 
Time is not a dimension, but an effect. ***
Click to expand...

Measured calculation vs. perception


I would never have guessed you'd jump to that side of the argument.
(I guess whatever's convenient).


Don't worry, I don't have the required accreditation to really pose a point.
Carry on. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

*** 'Effect' expressed as to it's relative comparison - 'dimension' as used in context.
 
TOS,

I do not know your temperature. Are you serious?
Click to expand...

Kerr was using an American colloquialism. I tend to think you know that, but that your dry British humour ("u" intended!) may fly right over some of us Yank heads! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

This is, however, not what I was talking about.
Click to expand...

Let me try and help. I can understand why some of the others might have a hard time understanding what you are saying. Perhaps I understand what you are saying, and it might be good to introduce at least a few equations to help clear things up. Is it possible that what you are relating here has some tentacles that stretch back to a few PMs we had about the full form of Newton's Second Law?

Force = m*(dV/dt) + V*(dm/dt)

Correct me if I am wrong, but referring to this equation of Newtonian mechanics would tend to show "time as an effect" as it relates to the totality of forces exhibited by or on an object. Force being the time rate of change of momentum (with the derivative chain rule applied you get the above equation). So I think you are inferring that an object "stores up its entire timeline" as a result of all the forces that have ever acted upon it to change its momentum.

Yes?

Not saying I totally agree that this accurately describes time and makes it a non-dimension, but just trying to fish around and help clarify the issue for others. And certainly the above equation is valid provided you are not approaching relativistic limits.
RMT
 
LOL. I see you deleted your previous posts. However...I did save them.
Will you happen to get drunk again tonight? I have some questions to ask. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Force = m*(dV/dt) + V*(dm/dt)

Correct me if I am wrong, but referring to this equation of Newtonian mechanics would tend to show "time as an effect" as it relates to the totality of forces exhibited by or on an object. Force being the time rate of change of momentum (with the derivative chain rule applied you get the above equation). So I think you are inferring that an object "stores up its entire timeline" as a result of all the forces that have ever acted upon it to change its momentum.

Yes?
Click to expand...

So, would that be stating there is 'no such thing as time' so to speak in 'a perfect vacuum'?
Then if that fits, and the answer is 'there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum' - then why are there no variations of it's effect in degrees attaining towards 'a perfect vacuum'?
According to NASA's website it states a blackhole, or event horizon in actuality have no effect on the passage of time, as well as 'time never standing still'
Taking into account the Newtonian Physics - does it not state as above that it is dependant on matter?
That would almost seem to make it a paradox?

Then after digesting that, I came across this -
Time travel has actually already been demonstrated. Scientists who studied passengers on the space shuttle proved that, because of the shuttle’s high speed, time moved more slowly for those on board.
Click to expand...
Ref;
slais.ubc.ca

Now if you were to do the write up of how that formulates, would it really be 'speed' or transition through gravitational force?
Or am I just trading terms for the same idea?
 
Extreme G-Force can happen on the ground too.
Try that link again up there. Then the debate seems to swing from perception to speed, without G-Force as a main factor?

I'm interested in this because apparently I've lived through an experience of about 100 G's.
Though I may not be current in all ettiquette for the expression of language, I'd appreciate it if explained so I can digest things correctly.
Apparently living to tell about it is rare, so I find it vastly fascinating.
Feel free to correct any speculation I was reading on this other board,
http://hypography.com/forums/physics-and-mathematics/13508-g-force.html

Interesting. Happy drinking there Mr. Storm.
 
On a completely unrelated note, if mass has an associated wavelength (according to de Broglie), then why not build a mass lens to project particles to larger or smaller sizes?

Cheers. Skol. Bottoms up. Whatever you say in your region. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
I guess that comes back down to practical application vs. theory?


IE;

When I think of the LHC in a metaphorical way it reminds me of combining two different schools of thought that can be closely related. The method is let's say Mr. Einstein.
The detectors are Jung.
Without perception what is detection? (aka detectors being an extension of physical perception).

It seems there would have to be a combination of perception and physics laws to achieve some of these unknowns.

Then that comes back to the old problem of, 'I know what I saw, and you know what you perceive'. The basis of each can be completely different, hence artificial 'detectors' so there is no qualms over personal perceptions.

Ironic isn't it?
 
I guess that comes back down to practical application vs. theory?
Click to expand...
I think I missed something. But "modern science" contains too much theory and too little application. The biggest problem is that testing relativity and quantum mechanics seems out of reach of the common man. Because of that, the would-be edison of this age is discouraged. It's a social condition which must be overcome.
 
yeah, I was modding that post above when you replied.

I think it addressed somewhat what you were referring to - that inevitably quantum sciences will have to knit together some of the other sciences hopefully.
 
I think it addressed somewhat what you were referring to - that inevitably quantum sciences will have to knit together some of the other sciences hopefully.
Click to expand...
More than that. Theories regarding black holes or relativistic speed are impractical to test on a budget (or in some cases at all). By diverting focus to these goals, independent experimenters run into a wall and are unable to proceed. Instead of spending so much time talking about black holes and light speed, people need to focus on what's right here right now. Time travel is practical.
 
Interesting.
Is is plausible to measure time with gravitational cogs of the clock so to say intead of light?
That's not coming out right, I'm going to chew on that.
 
Mon francais c'est tres terribles. Pardon moi ^^

Anglophone.

Okay, like we've mentioned before in different conversations, there are varying gravitational fields eminating from all different celestial bodies.
Picture them like waves across space.
These also obviously have a direct impact on rates of acceleration in many different ways.
From the transition of a freefall under it's ratio, to the manipulation of it's effect in each transition of an object.
Though it seems really important here that we focus on biology, living objects.
Smaller lifespans for smaller biological makeups, increased heartbeats, etc, etc.
All subject to, under gravitational forces every second.
Even 'weightlessness' or 0-gravity, is not really devoid of all gravitational fields, is it?
If that's the case, how could one theoretically create a space where it is known and sought to 'hold back' all eminations from all celestial objects?

If it's impossible, and there is a difference in time's passage as expressed in the above astronaughts experience - then wouldn't the gravitational forces measure this distinctly?

(When i say 'gravitational' forces I'm not just talking about Earth, but all sources).

PS

As well, if a space in that sense could be created, I have a feeling that it of course, wouldn't be 'travelling back in time' but it should be devoid of time?
After all - those eminations from all celestial objects are all the effects/after-effects of universal motion/time.
It's no wonder in that article that the experience for those astronaughts changed when a slight slice is altered?
 
Mon francais c'est tres terribles. Pardon moi ^^
Click to expand...
Je suis desolé. J'ai pensé que tu etais francophone. What is your native language?

Okay, like we've mentioned before in different conversations, there are varying gravitational fields eminating from all different celestial bodies.
Picture them like waves across space.
These also obviously have a direct impact on rates of acceleration in many different ways.
From the transition of a freefall under it's ratio, to the manipulation of it's effect in each transition of an object.
Click to expand...
Gravity waves only exist for oscillating massive objects. And they're weak.

Though it seems really important here that we focus on biology, living objects.
Smaller lifespans for smaller biological makeups, increased heartbeats, etc, etc.
All subject to, under gravitational forces every second.
Even 'weightlessness' or 0-gravity, is not really devoid of all gravitational fields, is it?
Click to expand...
Ever heard of Lagrange points?

If that's the case, how could one theoretically create a space where it is known and sought to 'hold back' all eminations from all celestial objects?

If it's impossible, and there is a difference in time's passage as expressed in the above astronaughts experience - then wouldn't the gravitational forces measure this distinctly?

(When i say 'gravitational' forces I'm not just talking about Earth, but all sources).
Click to expand...
Who says gravity is the only way to affect time?

PS

As well, if a space in that sense could be created, I have a feeling that it of course, wouldn't be 'travelling back in time' but it should be devoid of time?
After all - those eminations from all celestial objects are all the effects/after-effects of universal motion/time.
It's no wonder in that article that the experience for those astronaughts changed when a slight slice is altered?

"If one does not understand a person, one tends to regard him as a fool." --Carl Jung.
Click to expand...
There are two separate things to consider when dealing with time: time and the temporal record. Time is what you think of when you consider velocity, and the delta v of velocity. The temporal record is the physical record of all interactions of matter. It should be obvious which is more important.
 
Je suis desolé. J'ai pensé que tu etais francophone. What is your native language?
Click to expand...

J'habite dans l'Ontario, je parles anglais. (I don't speak french well enough to disrespect you /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif ).

Gravity waves only exist for oscillating massive objects. And they're weak.
Click to expand...

I've heard that before, but how can that be the case? Is it not the gravity waves that keep celestial bodies attracted? That would seem immense in that fashion. It's one thing to have gravity waves hold something in an orbit, but are we sure they cancel out, or do they combine?

Ever heard of Lagrange points?
Click to expand...

I'm digesting that now ^^ If it's what I'm thinking, I'm not disagreeing at all, it's just the view of 'subtle inference' vs. 'obvious effect'
Metaphorically in this context -
We know what a tidal wave or ocean current can do or produce, however it's just as related to humidity in some ways. (The obvious seen force, vs. the subtle).

Who says gravity is the only way to affect time?
Click to expand...

Well, that's what I'm getting at - let's not call what I'm referring to as 'gravity waves'
Let's call them 'gravity vapors' for comparison.
I'm just wanting to know if we can assuredly create a space where absolute zero from any origin can be achieved, whether or not they are segregated or combined.

Can you think of a space in the universe where some effect of motion does not exist?(excluding blackhole theory where they would not exist in totality?).

It comes back to the thought of 'the universe being in motion' - and the synchronization law of that motion as perceived in a measurement called 'time'.
Something keeps everything 'in sync' no matter if here or billions of light years away.
The only commonality I can make sense of is towards that;

The universe is in motion (all the 'cogs' of time) have one thing in common that 'reaches out' and is what limits our speed, distance, aging process, you name it -
Gravity, and I'm not speaking once again of necessarily just what keeps 'us glued in place here' but the idea of the interrelation here, and beyond us, between the galaxies, etc.
It's all tied together I'd assume, why?
Well if you can gauge the lifespans of stars so far out now, you can see that they keep 'in time' - in their motion relative to us, what's the common denominator here?
(IE; The invisible web underlaying all distance of a universe in motion, should be created from that motion - just as in the analogy 'before the big bang' - well after such event, motion has it's uniformity everywhere - 'time').

I know I'm not speaking in the terms probably you're used to, it tends to confuse and muddle what I'm saying, but think of it this way -
There was a time in human history when all we saw was water - not the composition of the function.
As well, we've found all different degrees and levels of it's usefulness in hundreds if not thousands of ways.
Multitudes of interactions, etc.

What else holds everything in 'motion' but the cause and effect of the celestial bodies?
(universal time = universal motion).

Maybe it's a field, maybe it's a wave, - however as time passes -, there's a layer under all the chemical compositions, the main rotational force of our planet's movement...
If we stay 'in time' with another Star so far far away in the recesses of what we can see, it's all kept knit together and 'in time' with each accord through motion.
'If' motion is what is common to time - what is the effect of the macro? Celestial bodies spinning.
It all has to be tied together.

Thoughts?


PS
After looking at the Lagrange pts for awhile - it makes sense, but what I'm referring to would be more like 'a collective of dissipation' if that makes sense. I need to expand this vocab for sure.

Here's a visual ref'

Orig Lagrange pt -

Lagrange_points.jpg



And then with what I'm imagining -
(with far left signifying outlaying sources, then to the far right combining? not sure, not sure in entirety at all, <then the red 'Arcs' around the sun to signify 'bending' of dissipation>
- but gives a help with mind's eye).

lagrangepointsred.jpg


P.S.

If we could actually call gravity the 'macro' and see it's makeup in 'micro' (see the patterns of frequency in one micro segment and the complexity of pattern) - then if we were to gauge where the gravitational effects of a large celestial body originate, could we definatively say and find where the distance is, where it does not exist whatsoever?
(I guess that comes back to if the forces ever on some scale combine totally? or if there is a segregation of frequency? / how to find that? pattern, even if the pattern changes,
*the original signature should be there).
 
If the above held a grain of salt -
(I've done some researching and sure enough each term that made sense already exists directly in this context);
IE;

http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~burrows/gw.web/index.html
(I know I didn't even take into consideration supernova's but the catalogue above shows that data is being collected which is an important point).

To find and seperate the supposed gravitational wave signatures -
could we not take raw data in any area of readings, put the data together in a sequential irregular matrix, then take out the identified signatures, and try to pull out the seperate data sets based on signatures?

Though if they are combined then it turns into a hunt of logical partial signatures, maybe even giving a direction?

(Anyone remember that term, 4D compass? it was more just figurative).
 
But "modern science" contains too much theory and too little application.
Click to expand...

According to whom? Theoretical physics is just one area of physics. There's also experimental physics, applied physics and engineering. After that there's what we call "the business cycle" where the applied physics and engineering becomes a useful product.

I'm sorry, but physical reality probably isn't going to alter itself to fit someone's idea of a social problem just so Fred Smith can understand the fine details of quantum mechanics in non-math comic book form.

Fred can still go out an invent anything that he desires to invent without a keen understanding of QM or physics in general. But if Fred is of at least average intelligence and wants to know some of the fine details he can spend time studying them. Fred can even get copies of complete university physics courses, starting from the basics, online at several sites or even iTunes. He won't get the equivalent of a BS in physics but he will be able to understand the basics.

In any case, modern physics is quite available to Fred as long as Fred is self-motivated, interested in the topic and has a desire to learn.
 
Back
Top