Time

[All Seeing Eye]

No need to draw a diagram, I actually understood what you're saying. It just doesn't make any sense. You keep insisting that orbiting is the same as "spiraling." It's not. An orbit is the equilibrium of momentum of a planet balanced by gravity's constant acceleration towards a star (though you were right in that gravity is really curved space-time, I oversimplified the relationship). Gravity doesn't make the planet orbit, and despite popular perception, it doesn't speed a planet up. Gravity only accelerates objects that aren't in orbit. It just takes the planets existing trajectory and curves it into a loop.

Yes I know all that and it does not change my theory of time. I'm not saying orbiting is the same as spiralling but it can't spiral unless it's circling/orbiting the central point. The only difference is down to the speed of the orbit.

BTW, you say Gravity does not speed a planet up. Of course it does. If the Earth orbit was spiral, as it got closer to the Sun it would orbit much faster due to the Gravitational pull. This is why comets for example get faster on their approach to the Sun.

One last thing, my diagram is a simplified representation, to create the diagram in 4D would be impossible. Is as simplified as the ball on a rubber sheet used to explain the curvature of the fabric of space.

 

[Trekker4747]

If I'm not too much mistaken gravity does effect time much in the same way time dilation works. For example, were we to exagerate this effect someone standing next to a heavy object would look out into the world and see the world further away from the object moving faster, to him everything seems normal. The reverse is true for those further away from our heavy object. To them the world seems normal and those by the heavy object appear slow.

It's in part because of this and time dilation due to speed the GPS satellites in orbit have very precise clocks that have to practice "leap seconds" almost constantly in order to stay synced to the time on earth. If they didn't do this they'd quickly fall out of line with time and wouldn't be able to function.

So, to extrapolate from this we could assume that time moves "slower" (compared to Earth) on Mercury and "faster" on Neptune due to their distances from the sun. Now, the effect is tiny but it's there (much like, in theory, people driving on the highway right now are experiencing time slower than I am standing still, from my prespective, of course.) If the earth was spiraling towards the sun it could be assumed that this effect would occur to, but not in any meaninful way for it to matter. Our sun would have to have the mass of a blackhole for there to be any difference. Infact, this is one of a few ways some scientists say "time travel" to the future may be possilble. You get in a ship, speed towards a blackhole, get really close to it, but not close enough to get trapped into its gravity well, and then you orbit it a few times. On the ship time passes fairly normaly, on earth time moves fast (compared to those on the ship) they do this as long as they need to, de-orbit the blackhole, reutrn to earth "in the future." That is, arriving much later than the time they left and were gone, even accounting for time dilation from the, presumably, near-c travel.

What Tachy is suggesting here has... "merit" in theoretical ways. Obviously many here are aware of the many universes theory. It could be that like planets orbit the sun many universes in these expanding spheres of matter and energy are orbiting some other powerful mass and like planets and their parent stars they do get "closer" to their parent star by something like an inch a year. (From what I read there's competeing theories and thoughts if the earth's orbit is "decaying." Some thing "atmospheric drag" from the solar wind is slowing us down, some thing we're fine, some say it may be happening but not in anyway that will ever matter, etc.)

So, presume that the universe is an expanding sphere of matter and energy that is slowly growing (like a balloon!) and it is orbiting a powerful field of energy in the multi-verse, where the liest many if not infinite universe also orbiting this energy field and it's orbit is decaying over time and this effect is somewhat powerful although not to us, being in the universe we experience the changes as part of the flow of things much like that FTL traveler looking out his cockpit window.

I could further toss out there as the universe expands until all of the energy in the universe is spent (all of the stars have "burnt out") and all of the mass of the universe finally falls into this central multi-verse mass gets stripped down into energy, expelled, where it condenses and begins expanding again as a new universe.

 

[STR]

Yes I know all that and it does not change my theory of time. I'm not saying orbiting is the same as spiralling but it can't spiral unless it's circling/orbiting the central point. The only difference is down to the speed of the orbit.

My whole point is that creating a central external focus is an utterly pointless creation that does nothing to solve the issue at hand. It's an unneeded complication, and actually creates more problems than it solves because you'd have to explain why it does or doesn't affect our universe in other ways.

...If the Earth orbit was spiral, as it got closer to the Sun it would orbit much faster due to the Gravitational pull. This is why comets for example get faster on their approach to the Sun.

I'm sorry, I'm still shaking off the rust. Confused orbital velocity with total energy. An object at a lower orbit has less energy than one at a higher orbit, despite being slower. It's why you need bigger rockets to get into geostationary orbit than the ones used to get into LEO, and why they needed the Saturn V to get to the moon. Gravity does not add to the total energy of the orbit in a 2 body system, though it may accelerate/decelerate certain portions of the orbit.

And stop saying stuff like "the Earth orbit was spiral." It either an orbit or a spiral trajectory, not both. A correct phrasing is "if the Earth had a spiral trajectory..." Orbit is a very specific term.

 

[sojourner]

^Save your typing. Tachy does not change his views and takes his ignorance as a matter of pride. Everyone else is wrong. always.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

^Save your typing. Tachy does not change his views and takes his ignorance as a matter of pride. Everyone else is wrong. always.

Why would I change my view on this matter when nobody knows the true correct view?
We're simply discussing the matter, I don't think the aim of anyone is to force a view change, just discuss.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

^Save your typing. Tachy does not change his views and takes his ignorance as a matter of pride. Everyone else is wrong. always.

I realize he can be frustrating to deal with but let's not get personal here.

 

[sojourner]

^Save your typing. Tachy does not change his views and takes his ignorance as a matter of pride. Everyone else is wrong. always.

Why would I change my view on this matter when nobody knows the true correct view?
We're simply discussing the matter, I don't think the aim of anyone is to force a view change, just discuss.

I rest my case.

 

[Zachary Smith]

Time is a function of the expansion of the universe and ALL of the objects contained therein (you and me included). The more dense an object, the slower it expands, thus "time" is slowed within a gravitational field. Enter a gravitational field suitably powerful (the event horizon of a black hole, for example) for all intents and purposes, time stops.

Time slows as an object accelerates because inertia slows expansion along the dimensional axis of acceleration.

It's really pretty simple:

Extend an object along the axis of length, it gets longer.

Extend it along the axis of breadth, it gets wider.

Extend it along the axis of height, it gets taller.

Extend an object simultaneously along all three axis' on (or perhaps below) the quantum level, it moves forward in time.


And, yes, this DOES mean the the entire universe and every object within it WAS physically "smaller" in the "past". Literally.

This "Relativity of Expansion Rate" is difficult to perceive because all of our measuring instruments are ALSO expanding at essentially the same rate. Once we are able to get into deep space (and absent strong gravitational fields) for a significant period of time, it will be seen that objects returning from "out there" will be measurably larger than when they left Earth. The ratio will match the discrepancy in relative "time passed" also.

 

[Scout101]

Why would I change my view on this matter when nobody knows the true correct view?
We're simply discussing the matter, I don't think the aim of anyone is to force a view change, just discuss.

That's well and good on the theoretical stuff, where people are just guessing what's going on. Not as noble or defensible on the stuff where your views have been shown to be wrong, and then you respond by saying you know all that, but aren't changing your views...

Ponder what the fluffy white cloud reminds you of, and debate with others all day long. Tell people that the cloud was created by dragons' firey breath, you can't really maintain the discussion after a point.

 

[137th Gebirg]

You keep insisting that orbiting is the same as "spiraling." It's not. An orbit is the equilibrium of momentum of a planet balanced by gravity's constant acceleration towards a star (though you were right in that gravity is really curved space-time, I oversimplified the relationship).

This is partially true. The one problem is, when the balance is off, the equilibrium is lost and the orbiting body will move in the path of a spiral. Our own moon is a perfect example, which has been proven to be moving farther away from earth at approximately 38mm per year, measurable using the special laser reflectors that were placed there by the Apollo missions to measure that very thing. Now I don't know if that implies a change in velocity the closer in or farther out an orbiting body moves, but I can say with certainty that not all orbits are perfectly balanced.

Here's a link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Experiment

 

[Zachary Smith]

You keep insisting that orbiting is the same as "spiraling." It's not. An orbit is the equilibrium of momentum of a planet balanced by gravity's constant acceleration towards a star (though you were right in that gravity is really curved space-time, I oversimplified the relationship).

This is partially true. The one problem is, when the balance is off, the equilibrium is lost and the orbiting body will move in the path of a spiral. Our own moon is a perfect example, which has been proven to be moving farther away from earth at approximately 38mm per year, measurable using the special laser reflectors that were placed there by the Apollo missions to measure that very thing. Now I don't know if that implies a change in velocity the closer in or farther out an orbiting body moves, but I can say with certainty that not all orbits are perfectly balanced.

Here's a link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Experiment

Unless, of course, the moon HASN'T moved more distant and it's simply a case that the SPACE between the Earth and moon has expanded more rapidly than the local space immediate to each physical body.

(This phenomena, incidentally, also explains the tremendous red-shift seen in vastly distant bodies--the space between the body and the earth-bound observe is expanding quite rapidly and thus the light (which does travel at a constant in a vacuum) has "further" to travel and therefore the illusion is created that it is red-shifted. The objects are NOT "receding" from the observer, per se. In fact, LOCALLY, they are not moving in any unusual fashion. It's just that the space between the object and the observing is RAPIDLY expanding, creating greater "distance" and red-shifting the light. )

 

[137th Gebirg]

^^^Interesting thought. I hadn't considered that space itself may be naturally distorting/expanding. Would make sense, actually - if the universe is an ever-expanding balloon, the distance of the molecules within it would expand as the outer boundaries of the balloon expands. It could easily stand to reason that the universe is behaving in the same way.

 

[Trekker4747]

The "space expanding" one is hardly a new one. Common theory is that the planets and such aren't so much as physically moving so much as they're being pulled along
with the expanding fabric of space (the "blowing up a balloon! " meme). It seems that within this expanding space things are physically moving as well as having space expand but space is, it seems, expanding and, IIRC, dark matter and dark energy are involved in this expansion.

 

[STR]

And, yes, this DOES mean the the entire universe and every object within it WAS physically "smaller" in the "past". Literally.

This "Relativity of Expansion Rate" is difficult to perceive because all of our measuring instruments are ALSO expanding at essentially the same rate. Once we are able to get into deep space (and absent strong gravitational fields) for a significant period of time, it will be seen that objects returning from "out there" will be measurably larger than when they left Earth. The ratio will match the discrepancy in relative "time passed" also.

While the cosmological constant is indeed trying to balloon us up like a loaf of bread, the emphasis is on "trying." Electromagnetism and the S/W nuclear forces all keep our bodies together at a constant size. Our atoms are not expanding, nor are our quarks, or molecules. Standing here on earth, even gravity is strong enough to keep us from floating away with the rest of space. On a larger scale, there is even enough gravity to not only keep our galaxy in one spiral piece, but enough to drag us into an inevitable collision with the Andromeda galaxy too.

If the universe's continual acceleration is due to an increasing cosmological constant, it will some day, far in the future, overcome the forces that hold us together. When it does, we're not going to gently inflate. We'll be torn to pieces and explode as the bonds that hold us together are broken. Up until that point, you'll remain at a fairly constant size.

So no, you're not ballooning up, but that doesn't mean your basic theory is wrong. In fact, I cited it as a theory more plausible than the OP's. Time may well be a function of the expanding universe. I personally don't know, and given the amount of debate on the subject, I don't think anyone else does either.

You keep insisting that orbiting is the same as "spiraling." It's not. An orbit is the equilibrium of momentum of a planet balanced by gravity's constant acceleration towards a star (though you were right in that gravity is really curved space-time, I oversimplified the relationship).

This is partially true. The one problem is, when the balance is off, the equilibrium is lost and the orbiting body will move in the path of a spiral. Our own moon is a perfect example, which has been proven to be moving farther away from earth at approximately 38mm per year, measurable using the special laser reflectors that were placed there by the Apollo missions to measure that very thing. Now I don't know if that implies a change in velocity the closer in or farther out an orbiting body moves, but I can say with certainty that not all orbits are perfectly balanced.

The issue isn't balance, but the Moon slightly gaining energy the oceans of the earth due to tidal forces, allowing it to maintain a stable higher orbit. This is also slowing the Earth's rotation. In effect, the Earth's rotation is being converted into Lunar orbital velocity. As the Earth slows down, eventually the Moon (having lost its energy source) will stabilize and after that will start drifting back towards the Earth, because of tidal forces caused by the Sun on the Earth-Moon system. Assuming, of course, that both haven't been enveloped by a red giant Sun at that point. It's still a fairly stable system, which will fluctuate as both objects are not perfect static spheres. However, the moon will neither fly away into space nor will it fall into the earth. As such, it's not what the OP was saying, and is not a spiral trajectory.

Fun Fact: Given enough time, the Earth and Moon will become tidally locked, with the Earth rotating in sync with the revolution of the Moon. Meaning the Moon will only be visible from one side of the Earth and a day on earth will be 1,128 hours long. That's 47 modern days.

 

[time]

I know time is a dimension like EM values are a dimension of space nothing more nothing less.


-------I eat real time, but here I could die from starvation!

 

[ProtoAvatar]

And, yes, this DOES mean the the entire universe and every object within it WAS physically "smaller" in the "past". Literally.

This "Relativity of Expansion Rate" is difficult to perceive because all of our measuring instruments are ALSO expanding at essentially the same rate. Once we are able to get into deep space (and absent strong gravitational fields) for a significant period of time, it will be seen that objects returning from "out there" will be measurably larger than when they left Earth. The ratio will match the discrepancy in relative "time passed" also.

Zachary Smith, let's say there's space with the length of a meter occupied by an object with the length of a meter.

Let''s say that in a billion years, space 'grows' until it is 10 meter long.
The object will STILL be 1 meter long - and it will occupy the center of the space (9 meters being 'empty' space).

Just because space is expanding, 'growing', does NOT mean that the objects in it are also expanding.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

And, yes, this DOES mean the the entire universe and every object within it WAS physically "smaller" in the "past". Literally.

This "Relativity of Expansion Rate" is difficult to perceive because all of our measuring instruments are ALSO expanding at essentially the same rate. Once we are able to get into deep space (and absent strong gravitational fields) for a significant period of time, it will be seen that objects returning from "out there" will be measurably larger than when they left Earth. The ratio will match the discrepancy in relative "time passed" also.

Zachary Smith, let's say there's space with the length of a meter occupied by an object with the length of a meter.

Let''s say that in a billion years, space 'grows' until it is 10 meter long.
The object will STILL be 1 meter long - and it will occupy the center of the space (9 meters being 'empty' space).

Just because space is expanding, 'growing', does NOT mean that the objects in it are also expanding.

But what is space? Are not the objects within it the same thing? A part of it rather than something separate?

 

[Scout101]

other way to look at it is that if the object grows to 10 meters, the ruler will also have expanded, so 1 meter worth of the ruler will still be the same size as the object...

 

[ProtoAvatar]

And, yes, this DOES mean the the entire universe and every object within it WAS physically "smaller" in the "past". Literally.

This "Relativity of Expansion Rate" is difficult to perceive because all of our measuring instruments are ALSO expanding at essentially the same rate. Once we are able to get into deep space (and absent strong gravitational fields) for a significant period of time, it will be seen that objects returning from "out there" will be measurably larger than when they left Earth. The ratio will match the discrepancy in relative "time passed" also.

Zachary Smith, let's say there's space with the length of a meter occupied by an object with the length of a meter.

Let''s say that in a billion years, space 'grows' until it is 10 meter long.
The object will STILL be 1 meter long - and it will occupy the center of the space (9 meters being 'empty' space).

Just because space is expanding, 'growing', does NOT mean that the objects in it are also expanding.

But what is space? Are not the objects within it the same thing? A part of it rather than something separate?

other way to look at it is that if the object grows to 10 meters, the ruler will also have expanded, so 1 meter worth of the ruler will still be the same size as the object...

An object is defined, among other attributes, by length, width and height.

From the object's point of view, he'll always have the same length.

When space expands from 1 meter to 10 meters, the object will still occupy only 1 meter - from all the length of the space to 1/10 of the length.

According to everything known, an object DOES NOT EXPAND. This is verified by the behaviour of objects inside gravitational fields (which are modifired space-time).

 

[STR]

^That's pretty much it, though both sides have a point. Space is expanding. Objects exist in space, and space is "trying" to inflate objects along with itself, but the constituent matter has a far stronger bond to the other constituent elements than the force attempting to rip it apart.

It's something like a tug of war. Space wants to inflate, the other fundamental forces want to keep things together. Right now, the strong nuclear force is keeping all your quarks together as particles. All those particles are kept together by the weak nuclear force as atoms, and all those atoms stick together to form your body because of electromagnetism. And you're body is kept on earth, and earth is kept together, and everything in the galaxy is held in place by gravity.