Time

[Jaaanosik]

Jaaanosik:

I would point you to Primary Matter as I see you are a Catholic. Primary Matter has an appetite for motion, but does not have motion intrinsically. Further, a sleeping cat is primarily and properly motionless, i.e., in terms of place. That it is respiring and digesting a recently eaten meal, is essentially accidental to its state of rest. We must be careful that we don’t confuse the accidental with the substantial and intrinsic.

A stone that rolls down an embankment and comes to a stop at the bottom is at rest. That its internal parts are in motion is accidental to it. At absolute zero, even those internal parts will more than likely be immobile.

God bless,
jd

Dan,
I am talking about physics. I am quite positive that this is the truth so there is no way around that.
Talking about the absolute zero - if there is no movement then there is no matter.
God bless,
Jano

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

But it isn’t measurable because time isn’t an attribute of matter, time is a co-ordinate system with no physical quantity.

Oh, so what does my stopwatch tell me when I use it?

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Ok, since you are conversant and understand physics may be you have overlooked something.

The Big Bang we know happened 13.7 Billion years give or take, a force decided to act to effect the reaction that set in motion the expansion of the Universe.

Well what if that force has not ceased acting?

Under constant acceleration the universe will continue to increase it’s speed of expansion unless that Force stops acting.

This force is what they are calling “Dark Energy” which by the way every one is trying to further define and detect.

But certainly it’s effects are there, because as you stated the Universe IS expanding at an increasing speed.

Right, dark energy (which is an energy and not a force) is the reason the expansion of the universe is accelerating. If there were an external force acting on universe, then the acceleration would be a deceleration, thus we can safely say that there are no external agents acting on the universe.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Well, I don’t think I want Lorentz transformation. It’s not going to answer the following questions.

It is still worth looking at it.

I know the answers but think about it.

Why we do not adjust clocks on the Earth according to GPS satellites? I know this one is silly.

This one is easy: GPS satellites are not in geosynchronous orbits, so there are some SR issues in the co-moving frame. The Hafele-Keating test showed that orbiting earth, even with take-off and landing, caused a delay or an increase in time, so using an orbiting satellite would be a bad idea!

Here comes another one: Why we do not get out the Sun-stationery satellites and we do not adjust the clocks on the Earth according to them?
Even better, let’s assume there is the Sun-stationery space station out there with people and each year the Earth comes back to it. Who ages faster? People on the Earth or on the space station?

We use earth-based clocks because the rotation we experience on the surface will cause other clocks that are not in a rotating system to go out of our time. Neither group will age faster, as relativistic effects will not exist in this scenario. The amount of time lost in measurement might work out to be something like a few microseconds (10[sup]-6[/sup] seconds), not even noticeable by anyone.

How many frame references ‘higher’ we can go?

I am not sure what this means.

 

[JerryZ]

Jaaanosik:

I would point you to Primary Matter as I see you are a Catholic. Primary Matter has an appetite for motion, but does not have motion intrinsically. Further, a sleeping cat is primarily and properly motionless, i.e., in terms of place. That it is respiring and digesting a recently eaten meal, is essentially accidental to its state of rest. We must be careful that we don’t confuse the accidental with the substantial and intrinsic.

A stone that rolls down an embankment and comes to a stop at the bottom is at rest. That its internal parts are in motion is accidental to it. At absolute zero, even those internal parts will more than likely be immobile.

God bless,
jd

Even when we decide that an object is not moving withing the totality of frames of reference, we still have the particles that make up the object that ARE moving electrons revolve around the nucleous etc.

Matter by it very nature has SIZE components that is it occupies space (3 dimensions) and of course it also is affected by the 4th.

Again our 3D brains have a real hard time wrapping around 4D

 

[JerryZ]

Right, dark energy (which is an energy and not a force) is the reason the expansion of the universe is accelerating. If there were an external force acting on universe, then the acceleration would be a deceleration, thus we can safely say that there are no external agents acting on the universe.

Well they call it “Energy” but would you agree with me and general laws of physics that it acts as a FORCE if it is accelerating the Universe?

Also you are looking from outside the Universe but you are making a huge mistake.
The force acted and it’s still acting at the singularity where all the Universe spranged out from NOT from the Outside.

Unless there is a force outside our Universe pulling it from all apparent directions!

I like the 1st option better

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Well they call it “Energy” but would you agree with me and general laws of physics that it acts as a FORCE if it is accelerating the Universe?

The spatial gradient of energy is a force. But we cannot see forces, only their effects. We can, however, observe energy, hence people talking about dark energy and not dark force.

Also you are looking from outside the Universe but you are making a huge mistake.
The force acted and it’s still acting at the singularity where all the Universe spranged out from NOT from the Outside.

Unless there is a force outside our Universe pulling it from all apparent directions!

I like the 1st option better

If there were an external force (and we are not talking about God here) acting on the universe, then we would see the effects of that force. Think of it this way: if you push down on an inflated balloon, you see an impression, yes? The same would occur in our universe if an external force were being applied. Since we do not observe anything but accelerated expansion in all directions, there are no external forces being applied to the universe.
Your first option refers to dark energy’s effect on the expansion of the universe. We need an internal (to the universe) force that is repulsive and not attractive. An external attractive force could suffice, I suppose, but it is (a) an untestable hypothesis and (b) unlikely given the vastness of space. I prefer the first choice as well.

I do also want to note that the big bang was a four-dimensional explosion, not a three-dimensional one. As such, the center of the explosion is actually everywhere in the universe, and not at one, localized point!

 

[JerryZ]

The spatial gradient of energy is a force. But we cannot see forces, only their effects. We can, however, observe energy, hence people talking about dark energy and not dark force.

If there were an external force (and we are not talking about God here) acting on the universe, then we would see the effects of that force. Think of it this way: if you push down on an inflated balloon, you see an impression, yes? The same would occur in our universe if an external force were being applied. Since we do not observe anything but accelerated expansion in all directions, there are no external forces being applied to the universe.
Your first option refers to dark energy’s effect on the expansion of the universe. We need an internal (to the universe) force that is repulsive and not attractive. An external attractive force could suffice, I suppose, but it is (a) an untestable hypothesis and (b) unlikely given the vastness of space. I prefer the first choice as well.

I do also want to note that the big bang was a four-dimensional explosion, not a three-dimensional one. As such, the center of the explosion is actually everywhere in the universe, and not at one, localized point!

Yes I agree that all the dimensions were all created at the moment of the Big Bang same as all the forces acting within the Universe but as we already have the Time of birthplace maybe sometime in the future with better tools we might be able to p(name removed by moderator)oint the Where also.
After all the motion of all the galaxies away from each other prompted the theory in the first place, and it quite consolidated now that it was a singularity, which is not “everywhere”

Also note that the Force that destabilized the nothing into something and that is continuing to affect the Universe is not an “internal” one. The singularity was nothing.
Nothing cannot contain a force or energy (it ceases to be nothing)
And yet the force continues acting after the event of creation.

 

[zro_x]

There you again! trying to use your tridimensional brain to wrap around a reality that is outside the realm it was supposed to work with.

You cannot define time with the same measurement units used for the other 3 dimensions, 1 meter of time is meaningless, I am sorry to inform you!

And nope, seconds are only a derived quantity for the frame of reference made up by the rotation of the Earth divided by a 60.
Rotation has this particularity of working well with the Hexadecimal system for some reason!

They bear no relation whatsoever to what the Dimension (Time) is measured expressed etc. because we just suffer or are slave to travel on IT and divide the intervals of progression in Earth seconds.
Remember mass changes the speed at which we travel through time, same as speed.
If we lived in planet twice as heavy as Earth that still rotated at the same rate 24Hr/Rev, the 1 sec there would not be the same as the one here.
Sounds complicated?

It is!

Remember that as objects speed up lengths contract, so meters are just as relative as seconds are. And I still don’t see why you couldn’t measure time with the same unit as the other three dimensions.

 

[zro_x]

Natural units are cool but zro x was asking how many seconds in a meter, and the Planck units are tiny little critters in comparison.

Yes, I doubt that one plank time = one meter. however, you may be on to something Jd. Maybe one plank time = one plank length

 

[zro_x]

It is still worth looking at it.

The amount of time lost in measurement might work out to be something like a few microseconds (10[sup]-6[/sup] seconds), not even noticeable by anyone.

no one may notice it, but there would still be some time lost. Who would lose the time? from the point of view of the space station, the earth is orbiting the sun. From the point of view of the earth, the space station is orbiting the sun. In order for any relativistic affects to occur, someone has to actually be moving!

 

[JDaniel]

Dan,
I am talking about physics. I am quite positive that this is the truth so there is no way around that.
Talking about the absolute zero - if there is no movement then there is no matter.
God bless,
Jano

Jano:

Then entropy should effectively begin the annihilation everything that exists, everything in the universe. So, we’ll be left with pure space. Nothing else. Well, so much for the oscillating universe theory!

I will be sure to use this argument against my atheist friends.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Even when we decide that an object is not moving withing the totality of frames of reference, we still have the particles that make up the object that ARE moving electrons revolve around the nucleous etc.

Jerry:

Yes we do. Everything in a living body is made up of atoms and particles in motion. And, each owns a motion proper to it.

Matter by it very nature has SIZE components that is it occupies space (3 dimensions) and of course it also is affected by the 4th.

Only if it is in motion. A bit of matter in the final stages of entropy won’t have any effect on what we think of as “time” - most likely.

Again our 3D brains have a real hard time wrapping around 4D

Quite amazing!

God bless, Jerry,
jd

 

[zro_x]

Jano:

Then entropy should effectively begin the annihilation everything that exists, everything in the universe. So, we’ll be left with pure space. Nothing else. Well, so much for the oscillating universe theory!

I will be sure to use this argument against my atheist friends.

God bless,
jd

doubtful.

The universe may cool as it expands, but it will probably only approach absolute zero, never reach it. In fact, I don’t think that scientists have actually reached absolute zero experimentally yet. What, then, could be the basis behind the claim that matter will cease to exist if it loses all of its kennetic energy? I can see why it would cease to have mass, since, from what I understand, mass is caused when a particle moves through and interacts with the Higgs field. so, lack of motion may cause an object to lose its mass, but it would still take up space, right?

 

[JDaniel]

Yes I agree that all the dimensions were all created at the moment of the Big Bang same as all the forces acting within the Universe but as we already have the Time of birthplace maybe sometime in the future with better tools we might be able to p(name removed by moderator)oint the Where also.
After all the motion of all the galaxies away from each other prompted the theory in the first place, and it quite consolidated now that it was a singularity, which is not “everywhere”

Jerry:

Think of that “singularity” as a transfinite stack of point particles. As point particles are dimensionless (hence “singularity”), all that was needed was for that huge, but finite, yet dimensionless stack of point particles to begin to expand for the duration of the universe. God has determined what that duration is.

What is very interesting is that we are to regard Creation as a singular event, even though creational events continue to go on.

Also note that the Force that destabilized the nothing into something and that is continuing to affect the Universe is not an “internal” one. The singularity was nothing.
Nothing cannot contain a force or energy (it ceases to be nothing)
And yet the force continues acting after the event of creation.

Quite true.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Yes, I doubt that one Planck time = one meter. however, you may be on to something Jd. Maybe one Planck time = one Planck length

Zro x:

Actually, there is a difference between them. I do not have my reference materials with me, so I can’t tell you what those differences are. But it seems to me they were significant. Yikes, sorry! But, they are quite related. Perhaps Alberti_Devoveo can tell us.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

doubtful.

The universe may cool as it expands, but it will probably only approach absolute zero, never reach it. In fact, I don’t think that scientists have actually reached absolute zero experimentally yet. What, then, could be the basis behind the claim that matter will cease to exist if it loses all of its kennetic energy?

Zro x:

Good question!

I can see why it would cease to have mass, since, from what I understand, mass is caused when a particle moves through and interacts with the Higgs field. so, lack of motion may cause an object to lose its mass, but it would still take up space, right?

You see, I don’t think any object really has mass. I think mass is manifest to us like a hologram. Very high def though. And, the Higgs, is still only postulated. I have to concur with Yppop, that mass is supplied by God, for our psychological benefit.

God bless,
jd

 

[pig]

Oh, so what does my stopwatch tell me when I use it?

It tells you whatever you want it to, if you made it.

 

[inocente]

Yes, I doubt that one plank time = one meter. however, you may be on to something Jd. Maybe one plank time = one plank length

Please see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units#Planck_units

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Yes I agree that all the dimensions were all created at the moment of the Big Bang same as all the forces acting within the Universe but as we already have the Time of birthplace maybe sometime in the future with better tools we might be able to p(name removed by moderator)oint the Where also.
After all the motion of all the galaxies away from each other prompted the theory in the first place, and it quite consolidated now that it was a singularity, which is not “everywhere”

You do not understand the four-dimensional nature of the big bang, nor the prompting of the theory.
It is blindingly easy to determine the location of the origin of an explosion: the debris follows specific trajectories, you just have to follow the trajectories backwards. In space, each galaxy is moving away from all other galaxies, equally. There is no trajectory to follow because there does not exist one.

The easiest way to explain it is to take a deflated balloon and put a whole bunch of equally spaced dots on it, then inflate it. What happens? Each dot moves away from all other dots equally and, if you only existed on the surface of the balloon, there is no origin of the expansion. This is the same thing in our universe. No amount of technological advances will ever be enough to determine the location of the big bang, it is not a physical possibility now or ever.

Also note that the Force that destabilized the nothing into something and that is continuing to affect the Universe is not an “internal” one. The singularity was nothing.
Nothing cannot contain a force or energy (it ceases to be nothing)
And yet the force continues acting after the event of creation.

No, the singularity was absolutely something. It must have been, otherwise we would be made of nothing, an obvious contradiction. Prior to the singularity was nothing, but God created something out of nothing: the singularity and all of existence.