Someone asked for a multiverse
- Thread starter Dryson
- Start date
It's time that is a "convenience," and more likely doesn't exist. Our obsession with it is probably a human bias rather than a fact of physical reality.
Not sure what that has to do with gravity, though.
Or multiverses.
Not sure what that has to do with gravity, though.
Or multiverses.
Or the Science and Technology forum.
You can still measure a distance across our Universe now that we know its approxiamate distance with gravity being a factor.
If gravity was removed from the Universe we could still measure from point A to point B. You do not need gravity as a prerequisite for time.
If we were to plot a distance on the outside of the Universe where it is not known if gravity exists between two points we can show that time as a measurable distance exists withoit gravity. Thus making time as measurable distance in an area without gravity still possible.
I'm gonna see what Professor Hawkings has to say.
If gravity was removed from the Universe we could still measure from point A to point B. You do not need gravity as a prerequisite for time.
If we were to plot a distance on the outside of the Universe where it is not known if gravity exists between two points we can show that time as a measurable distance exists withoit gravity. Thus making time as measurable distance in an area without gravity still possible.
I'm gonna see what Professor Hawkings has to say.
Make sure you bring some word salad dressing when you see him. I think he likes blue cheese.
Time is not a distance.
You are using it, apparently, as a dimension, when it doesn't actually exist as one. Its use as one in physics calculations is a contrivance to make things easier to understand.
Distance and gravity have nothing to do with each other beyond the inverse square law (over which the force of gravity diminishes from the center of mass of a gravitational body).
Where is this talk of the "need" for gravity coming from? I guarantee you nothing in physics works without gravity. It's not a question of "needing" it, it's that it exists. You can't just ignore it.
I still haven't figured out what you are trying to say and I gather that no one else has, either.
If he posts the same gibberish in enough quantum realities, eventually he'll hit one where he's correct. Maybe that explains the thread title?
Attempts to unify quantum theory and general relativity read like gibberish to most people anyway.
A plausible attempt dates back to 1967 and the Wheeler–DeWitt equation, in which time does not appear at all. Solutions proposed by researchers suggest that time might be an emergent property that is only apparent for denizens of the Universe but that from outside it appears to be static and timeless. This interpretation would suggest that time does need gravity to exist. In fact, gravity might provide the entropic arrow of time.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2-futures-can-explain-time-s-mysterious-past/
A plausible attempt dates back to 1967 and the Wheeler–DeWitt equation, in which time does not appear at all. Solutions proposed by researchers suggest that time might be an emergent property that is only apparent for denizens of the Universe but that from outside it appears to be static and timeless. This interpretation would suggest that time does need gravity to exist. In fact, gravity might provide the entropic arrow of time.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2-futures-can-explain-time-s-mysterious-past/
It's true. It reminds me of my proposed topological solution to the problem, which I wrote in the last couple of minutes.
Time is a measure in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future, and also the measure of the duration of events and the intervals between them
Time is a measurable distance of travel. For ever second that the clock ticks is a certain distance that the Earth orbits the Sun based on a length. For every tick on the clock it is also a measurable distance the Earth revolves around its axis still another length of measured distance.
Time therefore does not need gravity to exist like I mentioned. Time would exist separately of gravity because before the Universe came into being gravity as we know based on how gravity is measured did not exist.
But since there was some form of force present before gravity existed time therefore existed without gravity.
Even on the outside of our Universe time exists without gravity because infinity is still a measurable distance. Infinity which exists outside the realm of all influences of force that can be measured from starting point A to any point in space as point D with locations pointed as B and C along the time line of measure.
Time is a measurable distance of travel. For ever second that the clock ticks is a certain distance that the Earth orbits the Sun based on a length. For every tick on the clock it is also a measurable distance the Earth revolves around its axis still another length of measured distance.
Time therefore does not need gravity to exist like I mentioned. Time would exist separately of gravity because before the Universe came into being gravity as we know based on how gravity is measured did not exist.
But since there was some form of force present before gravity existed time therefore existed without gravity.
Even on the outside of our Universe time exists without gravity because infinity is still a measurable distance. Infinity which exists outside the realm of all influences of force that can be measured from starting point A to any point in space as point D with locations pointed as B and C along the time line of measure.
No. That was entirely a string of nonsense.
