| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
| Date: |
04 Oct 2004 06:49:36 AM |
| Object: |
Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law??? |
It must if speed,and gravity can change its rate of flow.We know time is
not a constant. Clocks tick at different speeds in different areas of
the cosmos. Does the accelerating expansion of space slow time? One
could create a theory that goes like this."Time runs slower the closer
you get to the universe's expanding horizon." If the universe's
horizon speed is now faster than the speed of light(no reason why not)
things could get very tricky. Bert
.
|
|
| User: "glbrad01" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law??? |
06 Oct 2004 04:56:32 AM |
|
|
Time doesn't run slower close to the Universe's horizon. You yourself are
inside that horizon right now as is this world and galaxy and everything
else that belongs to the Universe's horizon, or didn't you know that that
single [universal] horizon encompasses the whole of the Universe and
everything in it just as the horizon of Earth, admittedly in a different
dimensionality of horizon, is everywhere over the entire surface of the
Earth and encompasses everything whatsoever on that surface?
If the speed of light is constant, then time is constant. The Moon is
about one and a half light seconds from Earth in time. Time on the Moon
doesn't wait for light to arrive to the Earth to advance on the Moon. So in
the time of light's travel from the Moon to the Earth, carrying a one sided
two-dimensional time frame that will be a frame of time one and a half
seconds old by the time of arrival to any telescope's lens on Earth, time
advances one and a half seconds [on the Moon]. One and a half seconds travel
to "here and now," and one and a half seconds forward advance to the Moon's
"there and now," the two nows being exactly the same now for both. That is
the way time, and light, and advancement works in this area of the Universe,
and it is the way time, and light, and advancement works in any and all
areas of the Universe.
The farther away though, the longer light takes to get sequenced time
frames to us, so the farther behind the times of whatever there and now,
wherever that will be, our observation will be here and now. That
measurement of length of time, there and then to here and now, is exactly
the same measurement of length of time between [time] there and then and
[space-time] there and now. It just doesn't matter, it is the same physics
whether for the Moon so close to us 1.5 light seconds of light travel away
and 1.5 seconds of time ahead now in time of light's arrival from it to
Earth, Andromeda 2.2 million light years of light travel away and 2.2
million years of time ahead now in time of light's arrival from it to Earth,
or some galaxy 13.4 billion light years of light travel away and 13.4
billion years of time ahead now in time (a there and now, physically) of
light's arrival from it (an event time frame picture of there and then 13.4
billion times 10 trillion kilometers distant in space, 13.4 billion years
ago rather than that space-time there and now) to Earth. Each of these
distances in [space] has an absolute--a constant--time of now, "there and
now," tied to it precisely the same as Earth "here and now."
The fallacy that time graduatingly slows throughout all space between here
and the farthest horizon--to almost a stop, if not actually a stop--near the
farthest horizon from Earth exists so that it can appear that the observer
on Earth is observing whatever is observed to be there between Earth and
that farthest horizon, its exact location and exact state of being,
instantaneously with whatever it is being there at any distance whatsoever
from Earth.
Having the entire Universe accelerate up in velocity going away from the
Earth, thus slowing down in time concomitantly with all acceleration up in
velocity, means the Einsteinian observer on Earth observes events occurring
anywhere in the whole of Universe instantaneously with whatever event
occurrance is in progress at whatever distance, whether 1.5 light seconds
from Earth, 2.2 million light years distant from Earth, or even 13 or 14 or
more billion light years distant from Earth.
Have you never seen the oft used picture illustration by physicists that
illustrates the ultimate possibility adhering to this instantaneous
observation of events the instant any event occurs anywhere in the Universe?
The picture illustration that shows the back of an astronomer looking
through a telescope and observing farthest distantly in the Universe himself
looking through that same telescope observing farthest distantly in the
Universe himself looking through that same telescope observing farthest
distantly in the Universe..... Creative science fiction writers and movie
makers, like George Lucas, have taken this to next logical step,
instantaneous communication across any distance in the Universe.
Brad
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbertglazier@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:18333-416138D0-143@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net...
It must if speed,and gravity can change its rate of flow.We know time is
not a constant. Clocks tick at different speeds in different areas of
the cosmos. Does the accelerating expansion of space slow time? One
could create a theory that goes like this."Time runs slower the closer
you get to the universe's expanding horizon." If the universe's
horizon speed is now faster than the speed of light(no reason why not)
things could get very tricky. Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law??? |
07 Oct 2004 10:32:36 PM |
|
|
"glbrad01" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message news:<kjP8d.189213$MQ5.39791@attbi_s52>...
Time doesn't run slower close to the Universe's horizon. You yourself are
inside that horizon right now as is this world and galaxy and everything
else that belongs to the Universe's horizon, or didn't you know that that
single [universal] horizon encompasses the whole of the Universe and
everything in it just as the horizon of Earth, admittedly in a different
dimensionality of horizon, is everywhere over the entire surface of the
Earth and encompasses everything whatsoever on that surface?
You may be technically correct, but I think he referred to the edge of
the expanding universe.
If the speed of light is constant, then time is constant. The Moon is
about one and a half light seconds from Earth in time. Time on the Moon
doesn't wait for light to arrive to the Earth to advance on the Moon. So in
the time of light's travel from the Moon to the Earth, carrying a one sided
two-dimensional time frame that will be a frame of time one and a half
seconds old by the time of arrival to any telescope's lens on Earth, time
advances one and a half seconds [on the Moon]. One and a half seconds travel
to "here and now," and one and a half seconds forward advance to the Moon's
"there and now," the two nows being exactly the same now for both. That is
the way time, and light, and advancement works in this area of the Universe,
and it is the way time, and light, and advancement works in any and all
areas of the Universe.
There is no time constant, according to SR. Time rates vary between
objects which are not at constant acceleration wrt each other. You
put forth your explanation well, but you forgot to include that the
moon is moving faster than the Earth as it moves around the planet,
and so time is passing slower for the moon than it is for us.
However, that does not affect your hypothesis that for us time passes
the same on the moon as it does here on Earth, and thus 2.5 seconds
there is the same amount of time which passes during our 2.5 secs
here.
That is true, of course, because we are doing the measurement from our
proper time. Performed from the moon, we will see no difference,
either, for the same reason. However, the actual time which passes
will be different because the moon and earth are moving at constant
acceleration wrt each other, and so the amount of time that passes at
the moon will be less than the 2.5 which passes here to an observer
who is moving not quite as fast as the moon and not quite as slow as
the Earth. The moon can be said to be moving faster than the Earth
because it has to in order to circumnavigate the Earth. While we may
argue that the Earth is moving around the moon - and that can be a
valid argument in a reference frame which includes only the planet and
its satellite - the true relationship is that the moon moves at the
same speed as the planet does wrt the solar system, it moves faster
wrt the planet.
The farther away though, the longer light takes to get sequenced time
frames to us, so the farther behind the times of whatever there and now,
wherever that will be, our observation will be here and now. That
measurement of length of time, there and then to here and now, is exactly
the same measurement of length of time between [time] there and then and
[space-time] there and now.
Well, if it does, that only shows the limitations of math constructs
like the timespace continuum.
It just doesn't matter, it is the same physics
whether for the Moon so close to us 1.5 light seconds of light travel away
and 1.5 seconds of time ahead now in time of light's arrival from it to
Earth, Andromeda 2.2 million light years of light travel away and 2.2
million years of time ahead now in time of light's arrival from it to Earth,
or some galaxy 13.4 billion light years of light travel away and 13.4
billion years of time ahead now in time (a there and now, physically) of
light's arrival from it (an event time frame picture of there and then 13.4
billion times 10 trillion kilometers distant in space, 13.4 billion years
ago rather than that space-time there and now) to Earth. Each of these
distances in [space] has an absolute--a constant--time of now, "there and
now," tied to it precisely the same as Earth "here and now."
For that to be true, you must overthrow my argument above by showing
that time is absolute.
The fallacy that time graduatingly slows throughout all space between here
and the farthest horizon--to almost a stop, if not actually a stop--near the
farthest horizon from Earth exists so that it can appear that the observer
on Earth is observing whatever is observed to be there between Earth and
that farthest horizon, its exact location and exact state of being,
instantaneously with whatever it is being there at any distance whatsoever
from Earth.
That "fallacy" is just one person's opinion with which I disagree
because I claim that time varies only between objects (and not space)
because time is a property of discrete matter.
Having the entire Universe accelerate up in velocity going away from the
Earth, thus slowing down in time concomitantly with all acceleration up in
velocity, means the Einsteinian observer on Earth observes events occurring
anywhere in the whole of Universe instantaneously with whatever event
occurrance is in progress at whatever distance, whether 1.5 light seconds
from Earth, 2.2 million light years distant from Earth, or even 13 or 14 or
more billion light years distant from Earth.
Assuming you mean that the universe's lifetime accelerates when
someone nears lightspeed (thus moving faster than most matter in the
universe), the Earthbound observer will see the astronaut's ship slow
down to a crawl the nearer it gets to c. However, we can never see
the ship reach c because the lifetime of the universe will have passed
by then for the astronaut. For him, everyone else will appear to have
slowed down, according to SR.
Have you never seen the oft used picture illustration by physicists that
illustrates the ultimate possibility adhering to this instantaneous
observation of events the instant any event occurs anywhere in the Universe?
The picture illustration that shows the back of an astronomer looking
through a telescope and observing farthest distantly in the Universe himself
looking through that same telescope observing farthest distantly in the
Universe himself looking through that same telescope observing farthest
distantly in the Universe..... Creative science fiction writers and movie
makers, like George Lucas, have taken this to next logical step,
instantaneous communication across any distance in the Universe.
Brad
Yes, I have seen it, but that refers to the idea of multiple universes
and infinite futures, which theories I cannot support.
TomGee
100704
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law??? |
07 Oct 2004 08:36:16 AM |
|
|
Brad Don't judge all of the universe with classical thinking(macro
realm thinking) This thinking does not work in the quantum level.
Quantum weirdness tells us space and time have no meaning in its realm.
Actions between two particles can cross any distance "instantaneously"
(faster than light) Like Feynman told us QM is crazy when we relate it
to our classical common sense,but it is proven by experiment QM has
never been prover wrong. These thought come out of a "nonlocal"
universe.It is the nature of quantum reality Well Einstien believed in
locality( our big 4 dimensional level) He was proven wrong,and QM is our
very best theory. Bert PS time flows different on different areas of
the Earth's surface this has been proven
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law??? |
07 Oct 2004 10:47:08 PM |
|
|
(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in message news:<24872-41654650-61@storefull-3174.bay.webtv.net>...
Snip
Bert PS time flows different on different areas of
the Earth's surface this has been proven
Yes, true. So your point that time rates could vary over the surface
of the U.'s horizon is well-taken over the OP's contrary assertions.
TomGee
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Darkwing Duck \Infidel\ theducksmailATyahoo.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law??? |
04 Oct 2004 10:21:08 PM |
|
|
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbertglazier@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:18333-416138D0-143@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net...
If the universe's
horizon speed is now faster than the speed of light(no reason why not)
Sure..............
------------------------------------------
The Duck
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law??? |
05 Oct 2004 04:08:20 AM |
|
|
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbertglazier@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:18333-416138D0-143@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net...
It must if speed,and gravity can change its rate of flow.We know time is
not a constant. Clocks tick at different speeds in different areas of
the cosmos. Does the accelerating expansion of space slow time? One
could create a theory that goes like this."Time runs slower the closer
you get to the universe's expanding horizon." If the universe's
horizon speed is now faster than the speed of light(no reason why not)
things could get very tricky. Bert
No, proper time doesn't follow the inverse square law.
For weak gravitational fields, like that of the Earth,
proper time follows the gravitational potential. WRT
time in free space, t_0, time in Earth's gravitational
field, t_p , is given by
t_p / t_0 = 1 - (G M) / (R c^2)
Where Earth's Gravitational potential is given by
U(R) = - GM / R
Thus,
t_p / t_0 = 1 + U(R) / c^2
Where R is the distance to Earth's center, G is the
Gravitational constant, M is the mass of the Earth,
and c is the speed of light. More generally, for all
field strengths:
t_p / t_0 = sqrt[ 1 - (2 G M) / (R c^2) ]
Proper time stops (t_p = 0) at the event horizon of a
black hole, R = R_bh, where,
R_bh = (2 G M) / c^2
Thus, for any spherical body of mass, M, and radius,
R > R_bh, proper time at the surface is given by,
t_p / t_0 = sqrt[ 1 - (R_bh) / (R) ]
[Old Man]
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law??? |
07 Oct 2004 10:42:04 PM |
|
|
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message news:<HK-dnQe7Lekb-f_cRVn-uQ@prairiewave.com>...
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbertglazier@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:18333-416138D0-143@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net...
It must if speed,and gravity can change its rate of flow.We know time is
not a constant. Clocks tick at different speeds in different areas of
the cosmos. Does the accelerating expansion of space slow time? One
could create a theory that goes like this."Time runs slower the closer
you get to the universe's expanding horizon." If the universe's
horizon speed is now faster than the speed of light(no reason why not)
things could get very tricky. Bert
No, proper time doesn't follow the inverse square law.
Of course not. The law has to do with force and distance while time
is a quantity which accrues as a property to matter.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law??? |
04 Oct 2004 09:02:25 PM |
|
|
(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in message news:<18333-416138D0-143@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net>...
It must if speed,and gravity can change its rate of flow.We know time is
not a constant. Clocks tick at different speeds in different areas of
the cosmos. Does the accelerating expansion of space slow time? One
could create a theory that goes like this."Time runs slower the closer
you get to the universe's expanding horizon." If the universe's
horizon speed is now faster than the speed of light(no reason why not)
things could get very tricky. Bert
I'm sure you meant above to say that speed and gravity can change the
rate of the passage of time. However, I contend that the reason it
seems that gravitation changes time rates is simply because it changes
the speed of objects subjected to its effects. As an object is
accelerated in a gravitational field, its time rate slows as its speed
increases.
You pose an interesting hypothesis, Herb. My model claims it is
matter only which has the property of time and that dark matter and
energy are essentially fixed within the universe. Thus, space (and
the dark matter/energy) are not affected by time, apparently. I also
contend that the universe's expansion is space (dark matter/energy)
and visible matter expanding into space devoid of anything in it. In
such a case, space will expand outside of our dimension of time, but
not visible matter. Visible matter will have the property of time,
however, and if it is possible (by breaking a few of our local natural
laws) for matter to move at speeds ftl, it does indeed, as you say,
get very tricky.
TomGee
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law??? |
06 Oct 2004 05:36:23 PM |
|
|
Hi TomGee Visible,or invisible matter can never reach the speed of
light. Time does not stop close to light speed it justs flows much
slower. Photons going at light speed have stopped time,and they can be
at every place in the cosmos instantly. Photons don't grow old.
This is all part of SR,and fits nicely in our macro realm. In the
quantum realm spacetime might not be needed,and that makes things hard
for us to relate to in our very large 4 dimensional world. Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law??? |
06 Oct 2004 06:09:09 PM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Photons going at light speed have stopped time,and they can be
at every place in the cosmos instantly.
Nope--nothing propagates faster than the speed of light... even light!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law??? |
06 Oct 2004 10:02:31 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Photons going at light speed have stopped time,and they can be
at every place in the cosmos instantly.
Nope--nothing propagates faster than the speed of light... even light!
Yep, he seems to forget that time only seems "stopped" to light, to everyone
else around it time is observed at the normal rate for their reference frame..
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law??? |
07 Oct 2004 08:59:35 PM |
|
|
"Morituri-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message news:<bl29d.2152$sY3.868@fe2.texas.rr.com>...
Sam Wormley wrote:
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Photons going at light speed have stopped time,and they can be
at every place in the cosmos instantly.
Nope--nothing propagates faster than the speed of light... even light!
Yep, he seems to forget that time only seems "stopped" to light, to everyone
else around it time is observed at the normal rate for their reference frame..
Unfortunately, your argument can be taken as an egocentric perspective
called "induction" and which is unbefitting to scientific research.
There are too many instances where what we observe is not actually
what is happening.
SR infers in the Twin Paradox and in other experiments that time rates
vary for objects moving at different speeds wrt to each other anywhere
in the universe. Accepting that inference as true, there must be a
beginning and end to situations where time passes. My model claims
that time is a property of matter and that time passes for discrete
objects. Since matter cannot move at c, there is no matter at that
speed for which time can accrue, and thus, light appears to exist in
our universe without the property of time. Our ability to measure the
speed of light does not impart the property of time to light, as you
seem to claim above.
TomGee
100704
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law??? |
08 Oct 2004 12:17:13 AM |
|
|
TomGee wrote:
"Morituri-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message
news:<bl29d.2152$sY3.868@fe2.texas.rr.com>...
Sam Wormley wrote:
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Photons going at light speed have stopped time,and they can be
at every place in the cosmos instantly.
Nope--nothing propagates faster than the speed of light... even light!
Yep, he seems to forget that time only seems "stopped" to light, to everyone
else around it time is observed at the normal rate for their reference
frame..
Unfortunately, your argument can be taken as an egocentric perspective
called "induction" and which is unbefitting to scientific research.
There are too many instances where what we observe is not actually
what is happening.
Or you could just accept it and let it go at that..
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law??? |
08 Oct 2004 05:39:01 AM |
|
|
"Morituri-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message news:<tpp9d.4199$%e7.1386@fe1.texas.rr.com>...
Or you could just accept it and let it go at that..
Yes, of course. However, the next letter from wormley shows why we
should not just let things pass....
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law??? |
08 Oct 2004 12:30:40 AM |
|
|
TomGee wrote:
"Morituri-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message news:<bl29d.2152$sY3.868@fe2.texas.rr.com>...
Sam Wormley wrote:
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Photons going at light speed have stopped time,and they can be
at every place in the cosmos instantly.
Nope--nothing propagates faster than the speed of light... even light!
Yep, he seems to forget that time only seems "stopped" to light, to everyone
else around it time is observed at the normal rate for their reference frame..
Unfortunately, your argument can be taken as an egocentric perspective
called "induction" and which is unbefitting to scientific research.
There are too many instances where what we observe is not actually
what is happening.
SR infers in the Twin Paradox and in other experiments that time rates
vary for objects moving at different speeds wrt to each other anywhere
in the universe. Accepting that inference as true, there must be a
beginning and end to situations where time passes. My model claims
that time is a property of matter and that time passes for discrete
objects. Since matter cannot move at c, there is no matter at that
speed for which time can accrue, and thus, light appears to exist in
our universe without the property of time.
However, light take time to propagate any distance. In fact, distance is
measured with time (GPS comes to mind).
Our ability to measure the
speed of light does not impart the property of time to light, as you
seem to claim above.
TomGee
100704
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law??? |
08 Oct 2004 06:02:53 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<4Cp9d.353445$Fg5.274757@attbi_s53>...
However, light take time to propagate any distance. In fact, distance is
measured with time (GPS comes to mind).
Yes, quite so. The current question, however, is not whether or not
light moves instantaneously (which you point out that it does not),
but it has to do with the accuracy of Morituri-Max's inference that
light has the property of time with regard to his statement that time
only "seems 'stopped' to light,...."
Apparently, few things, if any, are completely this or that in our
universe. The mass in light particles is so small an amount that it
can be considered to be nil for any practical purpose wrt to how much
of an obstacle it presents to light in maintaining its speed and thus,
its long life. But we cannot really say that light is massless, nor
that light has not the property of time; except, as I said, for any
practical purpose we may think up.
TomGee
100804
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law??? |
08 Oct 2004 09:54:16 AM |
|
|
TomGee wrote:
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<4Cp9d.353445$Fg5.274757@attbi_s53>...
However, light take time to propagate any distance. In fact, distance is
measured with time (GPS comes to mind).
Yes, quite so. The current question, however, is not whether or not
light moves instantaneously (which you point out that it does not),
but it has to do with the accuracy of Morituri-Max's inference that
light has the property of time with regard to his statement that time
only "seems 'stopped' to light,...."
Apparently, few things, if any, are completely this or that in our
universe. The mass in light particles is so small an amount that it
can be considered to be nil for any practical purpose wrt to how much
of an obstacle it presents to light in maintaining its speed and thus,
its long life. But we cannot really say that light is massless, nor
that light has not the property of time; except, as I said, for any
practical purpose we may think up.
TomGee
100804
Yes--How true!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law??? |
08 Oct 2004 01:29:46 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
SR infers in the Twin Paradox and in other experiments that time rates
vary for objects moving at different speeds wrt to each other anywhere
in the universe. Accepting that inference as true, there must be a
beginning and end to situations where time passes. My model claims
that time is a property of matter and that time passes for discrete
objects. Since matter cannot move at c, there is no matter at that
speed for which time can accrue, and thus, light appears to exist in
our universe without the property of time.
However, light take time to propagate any distance. In fact, distance is
measured with time (GPS comes to mind).
You ever notice how none of these people ever provide any evidence where their
"theories" actually provide results at variance with the theory they are
refuting?
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law??? |
08 Oct 2004 06:11:08 AM |
|
|
"Morituri-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message news:<utq9d.3350$iC4.2552@fe2.texas.rr.com>...
Sam Wormley wrote:
SR infers in the Twin Paradox and in other experiments that time rates
vary for objects moving at different speeds wrt to each other anywhere
in the universe. Accepting that inference as true, there must be a
beginning and end to situations where time passes. My model claims
that time is a property of matter and that time passes for discrete
objects. Since matter cannot move at c, there is no matter at that
speed for which time can accrue, and thus, light appears to exist in
our universe without the property of time.
However, light take time to propagate any distance. In fact, distance is
measured with time (GPS comes to mind).
You ever notice how none of these people ever provide any evidence where their
"theories" actually provide results at variance with the theory they are
refuting?
Um, which theory do you refer to in your contention that I have failed
to provide any evidence for my theory which is at variance with it?
TomGee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law??? |
08 Oct 2004 01:51:20 PM |
|
|
TomGee wrote:
You ever notice how none of these people ever provide any evidence where
their
"theories" actually provide results at variance with the theory they are
refuting?
Um, which theory do you refer to in your contention that I have failed
to provide any evidence for my theory which is at variance with it?
You don't need me to point it out since you jumped in at my reference to "these
guys."
However, since you asked, tell us please the results you obtained from your
model that show how it is correct over the theory you are contending is wrong.
TomGee speculated:
"SR infers in the Twin Paradox and in other experiments that time rates vary for
objects moving at different speeds wrt to each other anywhere in the universe.
Accepting that inference as true, there must be a beginning and end to
situations where time passes. My model claims that time is a property of matter
and that time passes for discrete objects. Since matter cannot move at c, there
is no matter at that speed for which time can accrue, and thus, light appears to
exist in
our universe without the property of time."
So what I am asking here is that you show us actual evidence that it provides
which disproves SR. Your answer needs to include the methods and data you used
so that others can duplicate the conditions in their experiments.
Thanks
We can't wait to see if your model provides verifiable results that disprove SR.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law??? |
08 Oct 2004 05:35:34 PM |
|
|
"Morituri-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message news:<IkB9d.6098$%e7.1564@fe1.texas.rr.com>...
TomGee wrote:
You ever notice how none of these people ever provide any evidence where
their
"theories" actually provide results at variance with the theory they are
refuting?
Um, which theory do you refer to in your contention that I have failed
to provide any evidence for my theory which is at variance with it?
You don't need me to point it out since you jumped in at my reference to "these
guys."
However, since you asked, tell us please the results you obtained from your
model that show how it is correct over the theory you are contending is wrong.
TomGee speculated:
"SR infers in the Twin Paradox and in other experiments that time rates vary for
objects moving at different speeds wrt to each other anywhere in the universe.
Accepting that inference as true, there must be a beginning and end to
situations where time passes. My model claims that time is a property of matter
and that time passes for discrete objects. Since matter cannot move at c, there
is no matter at that speed for which time can accrue, and thus, light appears to
exist in
our universe without the property of time."
So what I am asking here is that you show us actual evidence that it provides
which disproves SR. Your answer needs to include the methods and data you used
so that others can duplicate the conditions in their experiments.
Thanks
We can't wait to see if your model provides verifiable results that disprove SR.
In fact, nothing I said disagrees with SR. On the contrary, I agree
with SR and I simply extend its findings to a logical conclusion. If
you disagree with that conclusion or any part of it, please tell us
why.
TomGee
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Powers" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law??? |
07 Oct 2004 01:16:38 AM |
|
|
(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in message news:<18333-416138D0-143@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net>...
It must if speed,and gravity can change its rate of flow.We know time is
not a constant. Clocks tick at different speeds in different areas of
the cosmos. Does the accelerating expansion of space slow time? One
could create a theory that goes like this."Time runs slower the closer
you get to the universe's expanding horizon." If the universe's
horizon speed is now faster than the speed of light(no reason why not)
things could get very tricky. Bert
Some original thinking here. But the universe's expanding horizon is
just like the rainbow: you can't get any closer to it or further from
it no matter what you do.
If the universe's
horizon speed is now faster than the speed of light(no reason why not)
You have confused two things: the horizon and change of the curvature
radius of the universe. Distance to horizon <= curvature radius of
the universe.
Distance to horizon = 30 billion light years.
Curvature radius >= 78 billion light years. Could be infinite.
After that I don't really understand the relationship very well. but
you are right: the universe is only 13 billion years old but the
horizon is much further than that, and the reason is the increase in
the curvature radius.
.
|
|
|
| User: "glbrad01" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law??? |
07 Oct 2004 05:02:40 AM |
|
|
Your wrong in the time of "13 billion years." If light travels 78 billion
years, 78 billion light years, that sets the time and the time cannot be
less. Thanks for correcting my own post concerning this figure--I put it at
76 billion light years by mistake--though you weren't addressing my post.
The claim is that we are looking out farther and ever farther back in time
to the beginning of the Universe. This presupposes time does not turnover,
that it is an "arrow" one end of which is the so-called Big Bang, there and
then, and the other end is the Earth, here and now (at least here). No
change, no event, occurs at this end, "now," that does not blow up the
balloon some more and lengthen the arrow that much more. Not a single second
passes on Earth, or rather at this end, that the arrow does not
correspondingly lengthen by one more light second and the Universe expand by
exactly that much in space-time (300,000 kilometers more of spatial increase
to the Universe, radially--blowing up the entire bubble or balloon that much
more, to that one second's passage in time (300,000 kilometers per second)).
Of course there is no space whatsoever along the arrow between Earth here
and now and the Big Bang there and then, regardless of the fact that Stephen
Hawking himself, in his immensely popular book "A Brief History of Time,"
said that if we were to travel out from the Earth, in space, in the
direction of the Big Bang, we would be traveling back in time (through
space). Such was even illustrated in the book as a bubble with a flat lens,
representing the Universe, at its equator half way between the beginning in
the so-called Big Bang and the end (at the time thought to be the "Big
Crush"). Now they simply have it as a big cone shape telescoping out with
the lens of the flat Universe at the large aperture end--of course. As to
Hawking, he has done a lot of mind changing since that time, I do believe.
It doesn't matter though, change is turnover, as in a wheel turning, it is
not an arrow. A wheel turning usually has reasonably straight spokes running
from the turning hub to the equally turning rim, and if the hub is zero, and
the rim is the distant horizon, the wheel will have rolled in turnover of
time forever and will roll in turnover of time forever. The Universe could
be infinite in space, eternal in time, but the spokes running out in
straight lines from any zero time point or hub (time at 300,000 kilometers
per second, 300,000 kilometers of space to each and every second of time, is
exactly zero) to the distant horizon or rim--be it 13.7 billion light years
or 78 billion light years, or whatever length--will have measurably finite
total length.
How old are the galaxies observed at a distance of 13.4 billion light
years distant from Earth. Cosmologists assume only 300 million years old.
They assumed this at the time of discovery since they assumed the Universe
to be 13.7 billion years old. By that distance, or at some distance not far
beyond that and maybe even short, to well short, of it, I presume quantum
accumulation and effects, and a lot of gravitation and gravitational effects
accumulating between, in the picture of time between here and now and there
and then will begin to change the picture, warp it in as yet unknown ways,
and play awesome tricks upon astronomers and cosmologists in the same way
Planck predicted quantum effects would accumulate to the point of quantum
chaos and vast warping in the picture the farther the distance looked down
into in nuclear--inner--space. Whether toward the infinite or towqrd the
infinitesimal, the attempted reach in looking across ever increasing
distance will end in collapse, a collapsed horizon that will not be
penetrated or resolved any further from this awesome distance in time from
it. We may still see something there, or detect something there, but it will
have nothing to do reality on the spot. Relativity, vis-a-vis time between
here and now and there and then, will have broken down totally, starting its
breakdown from the end of our noses moving outward in space and time toward
those far reaches. We just lose relativity far faster, far nearer, for space
than for time but the losses regarding relativity, both the nearer and the
farther, just accelerate in loss. Relativity accelerates in its breakdown
with all accumulating distance between entities in either space or time, or
even in velocity. Unreality begins invading, corrupting and gradually taking
over the picture with continually accumulating distance and accumulating
complexity and chaos. To the Universe though, probably even "unreality" has
its place, its own clearly identifiable entity, and its uses to the Universe
and maybe to us into the bargain.
Brad
"Patrick Powers" <frisbieinstein@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9511688f.0410062216.ff5184a@posting.google.com...
herbertglazier@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in message
news:<18333-416138D0-143@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net>...
It must if speed,and gravity can change its rate of flow.We know time is
not a constant. Clocks tick at different speeds in different areas of
the cosmos. Does the accelerating expansion of space slow time? One
could create a theory that goes like this."Time runs slower the closer
you get to the universe's expanding horizon." If the universe's
horizon speed is now faster than the speed of light(no reason why not)
things could get very tricky. Bert
Some original thinking here. But the universe's expanding horizon is
just like the rainbow: you can't get any closer to it or further from
it no matter what you do.
If the universe's
horizon speed is now faster than the speed of light(no reason why not)
You have confused two things: the horizon and change of the curvature
radius of the universe. Distance to horizon <= curvature radius of
the universe.
Distance to horizon = 30 billion light years.
Curvature radius >= 78 billion light years. Could be infinite.
After that I don't really understand the relationship very well. but
you are right: the universe is only 13 billion years old but the
horizon is much further than that, and the reason is the increase in
the curvature radius.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law??? |
07 Oct 2004 10:59:46 PM |
|
|
"glbrad01" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message news:<4v89d.83005$He1.68225@attbi_s01>...
Snip
The claim is that we are looking out farther and ever farther back in time
to the beginning of the Universe. This presupposes time does not turnover,
that it is an "arrow" one end of which is the so-called Big Bang, there and
then, and the other end is the Earth, here and now (at least here).
Why would such a presupposition stop at Earth and not go on the
horizon?
No
change, no event, occurs at this end, "now," that does not blow up the
balloon some more and lengthen the arrow that much more. Not a single second
passes on Earth, or rather at this end, that the arrow does not
correspondingly lengthen by one more light second and the Universe expand by
exactly that much in space-time (300,000 kilometers more of spatial increase
to the Universe, radially--blowing up the entire bubble or balloon that much
more, to that one second's passage in time (300,000 kilometers per second)).
Yes, agreed.
Snip
It doesn't matter though, change is turnover, as in a wheel turning, it is
not an arrow. A wheel turning usually has reasonably straight spokes running
from the turning hub to the equally turning rim, and if the hub is zero, and
the rim is the distant horizon, the wheel will have rolled in turnover of
time forever and will roll in turnover of time forever. The Universe could
be infinite in space, eternal in time, but the spokes running out in
straight lines from any zero time point or hub (time at 300,000 kilometers
per second, 300,000 kilometers of space to each and every second of time, is
exactly zero) to the distant horizon or rim--be it 13.7 billion light years
or 78 billion light years, or whatever length--will have measurably finite
total length.
All that above and below presupposes that time accrues to space and
matter, not just to matter, contrary to that which SR infers. You
must get past this confrontation before any of that which you claim
can be considered valid.
TomGee
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law??? |
04 Oct 2004 10:21:10 AM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
It must if speed,and gravity can change its rate of flow.We know time is
gravity doesn't have a "rate of flow."
speed also doesn't have a "rate of flow."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law??? |
04 Oct 2004 11:08:10 PM |
|
|
"Morituri-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message news:<GTd8d.15692$VB3.15278@fe2.texas.rr.com>...
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
It must if speed,and gravity can change its rate of flow.We know time is
gravity doesn't have a "rate of flow."
speed also doesn't have a "rate of flow."
Gravity is a moving continuum. And time flows.
Mitch Raemsch -- If Time isn't Still, It Moves --
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marcel LeBel" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law??? |
24 Jan 2005 10:48:46 PM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
It must if speed,and gravity can change its rate of flow.We know time is
not a constant. Clocks tick at different speeds in different areas of
the cosmos. Does the accelerating expansion of space slow time? One
could create a theory that goes like this."Time runs slower the closer
you get to the universe's expanding horizon." If the universe's
horizon speed is now faster than the speed of light(no reason why not)
things could get very tricky. Bert
- Force of gravity is/is the unequal flow of time from place to place
(Unruh)
- Force of gravity follows the inverse square law
- therefore, rate of flow of time follows inverse square law.
Note: It does not follow inverse square law in a geometrical sense, but
it just looks the same at short distance. It is more like a deficit in
the local (think Machian background) passage of time induced by the
presence of matter. It is a proximity induction process, so, not exactly
a line of sight process like the photon. Over a very very (very)long
distance, you could see a difference...Maybe the Pioneer anomaly is such
an example ??
Marcel,
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law??? |
04 Oct 2004 10:30:17 AM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
It must if speed,and gravity can change its rate of flow.We know time is
not a constant. Clocks tick at different speeds in different areas of
the cosmos. Does the accelerating expansion of space slow time? One
could create a theory that goes like this."Time runs slower the closer
you get to the universe's expanding horizon." If the universe's
horizon speed is now faster than the speed of light(no reason why not)
things could get very tricky. Bert
Question for you Herb--do you post to
[ ] draw fire?
[ ] impart wisdom?
[ ] cause it's just fun?
[ ] other?
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law??? |
04 Oct 2004 03:33:27 PM |
|
|
Hi Sam You left out the main reasons for my posts. That is to make
people "THINK" It is fun to think with your own thoughts,and not have a
"Google" brain(just the thoughts of others. Sam you some day should try
it. It would however mean lifting your head over your belt buckle.
It would get your nose out of your fly. Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law??? |
04 Oct 2004 03:54:52 PM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Hi Sam You left out the main reasons for my posts. That is to make
people "THINK" It is fun to think with your own thoughts,and not have a
"Google" brain(just the thoughts of others. Sam you some day should try
it. It would however mean lifting your head over your belt buckle.
It would get your nose out of your fly. Bert
Just out of curiosity, why do you think your newsgroup posts are any better than
the information people get on google? After all it isn't google making the web
pages, it's people that are indexed *by* google.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
