Re: Time

Chris Peterson · Post by **Chris Peterson** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:24 pm

makc wrote:Sputnick is aristarchyadayada's banned alterego. He bargained his way back into the forum from bystander in some deal I am not fully aware of.

And perhaps it's time to reconsider that after his "Yes, >t< (Now) is infinite, but not eternal ..." posting. This is a science forum, and that nonsense goes well beyond even the most speculative of material. It's meaningless and rather embarrassing.

astrolabe · Post by **astrolabe** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:51 pm

Hello makc,

Oh, I'm fully aware of the various aka's of Mr. aristarchusinexile. But I will say that the recent moniker has resulted, at the least, in improving my keyboard skills somewhat

P.S. Hope the Dads had a good day yesterday (Father's Day).

The Code · Post by **The Code** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:59 pm

I'm Really sorry Chris I do not agree, Every day for 13.7 billion years ( Now) has been in each one. Now moves from day to day for a reason And would be a scientific break through if we found out why time is as it is? Madness and Genius go one in hand.

Mark

Chris Peterson · Post by **Chris Peterson** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:13 am

mark swain wrote:I'm Really sorry Chris I do not agree, Every day for 13.7 billion years ( Now) has been in each one. Now moves from day to day for a reason And would be a scientific break through if we found out why time is as it is? Madness and Genius go one in hand.

I have no objection to discussions about what time is. But I do have an objection to pseudomathematical babble (not talking about you here).

I don't see any significant difference between your statement about now, and saying that as you walk a line, you're always "here".

The Code · Post by **The Code** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:29 am

Chris... Every word that comes out of your mouth The Big Bang created it. Everything that you can think of. Everything you can dream of. Every possibility we could imagine The BB created it. Every part of time was created in less than one second. the end was also created. So either (Now) was created to move in time as we know it,,, or our time is created by another means Local? Please do not delete aris... he opens my mind.

Mark

harry · Post by **harry** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:43 am

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Why does man want to complicate the issue with TIME?

It is SIMPLE, the term is used in maths to position matter in time. To measure motion.
It cannot be used as part of matter and it cannot be created or put to rest.
You cannot go into the past or into the future.

Although my favourite movie is the "Time Machine" and for years I dreamt of having one.

The Code · Post by **The Code** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 11:25 am

Your dreams may come true Harry.. Type time travel into the net. And watch the programs you will find..

Mark

harry · Post by **harry** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 11:30 am

G'day Mark

Mark I have read most time travel links.

My dreams are gone to la la land.

Than again why not in our dreams, maybe astro travel.

aristarchusinexile · Post by **aristarchusinexile** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:55 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
makc wrote:Sputnick is aristarchyadayada's banned alterego. He bargained his way back into the forum from bystander in some deal I am not fully aware of.

I simply let Bystander in on the secrets of the universe, Chris, not a big deal.

bystander · Post by **bystander** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 6:05 pm

aristarchusinexile wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:
makc wrote:Sputnick is aristarchyadayada's banned alterego. He bargained his way back into the forum from bystander in some deal I am not fully aware of.
I simply let Bystander in on the secrets of the universe, Chris, not a big deal.

makc said that, look at your own quotes.

What secrets have you revealed to me???
Certainly nothing I wish to repeat.

The Code · Post by **The Code** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 11:48 pm

harry wrote:G'day Mark

Mark I have read most time travel links.

My dreams are gone to la la land.

Than again why not in our dreams, maybe astro travel.

Hi Harry

There are people working on the problems as we speak.. Weather he knew it or not Einstein laid the first foundations for time travel. Then Hawking made everything real... Fact: we use Star technology... for power stations... We understand split the atom never ending energy. But the over powerful black holes are another story. Power for a hole 20 thousand earths life times. But Not a touch on the BB.. Something that creates time/energy from nothing.. Can you comprehend a hole universe contained inside 1 neutron particle? What was that about a chain reaction?

Mark

harry · Post by **harry** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:16 am

G'day mark

Mate, time travel lives in fantasy world.

There is no evidence to indicate time travel.

Unless you have this evidence, I will be in there link Flinn, if you know what I mean.

As for the BBT, it does not state that matter is created from nothing or the universe located (originated) in a neutron particle.

harry · Post by **harry** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:21 am

G'day Mark

To begin with I do not agree with the BIG Bang.

Regardless here are some papers on the Big Bang Theory

Evidence for the Big Bang

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astrono ... l#firstlaw

QUOTE
1) What is the Big Bang theory?
a) Common misconceptions about the Big Bang
In most popularized science sources, BBT is often described with something like "The universe came into being due to the explosion of a point in which all matter was concentrated." Not surprisingly, this is probably the standard impression which most people have of the theory. Occasionally, one even hears "In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded."

There are several misconceptions hidden in these statements:

•The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time.
•BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point-like.
•The origin of the universe was not an explosion of matter into already existing space.
The famous cosmologist P. J. E. Peebles stated this succinctly in the January 2001 edition of Scientific American (the whole issue was about cosmology and is worth reading!): "That the universe is expanding and cooling is the essence of the big bang theory. You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began." (p. 44). The March 2005 issue also contained an excellent article pointing out and correcting many of the usual misconceptions about BBT.

Another cosmologist, the German Rudolf Kippenhahn, wrote the following in his book "Kosmologie fuer die Westentasche" ("cosmology for the pocket"): "There is also the widespread mistaken belief that, according to Hubble's law, the Big Bang began at one certain point in space. For example: At one point, an explosion happened, and from that an explosion cloud travelled into empty space, like an explosion on earth, and the matter in it thins out into greater areas of space more and more. No, Hubble's law only says that matter was more dense everywhere at an earlier time, and that it thins out over time because everything flows away from each other." In a footnote, he added: "In popular science presentations, often early phases of the universe are mentioned as 'at the time when the universe was as big as an apple' or 'as a pea'. What is meant there is in general the epoch in which not the whole, but only the part of the universe which is observable today had these sizes." (pp. 46, 47; FAQ author's translation, all emphasizes in original)

Finally, the webpage describing the ekpyrotic universe (a model for the early universe involving concepts from string theory) contains a good recounting of the standard misconceptions. Read the first paragraph, "What is the Big Bang model?".

There are a number of reasons that these misconceptions persist in the public mind. First and foremost, the term "Big Bang" was originally coined in 1950 by Sir Fred Hoyle, a staunch opponent of the theory. He was a proponent of the competing "Steady State" model and had a very low opinion of the idea of an expanding universe. Another source of confusion is the oft repeated expression "primeval atom". This was used by Lemaitre (one of the theory's early developers) in 1927 to explain the concept to a lay audience, albeit one that would not be familiar with the idea of nuclear bombs for a few decades to come. With these and other misleading descriptions endlessly propagated by otherwise well-meaning (and not so well-meaning) media figures, it is not surprising that many people have wildly distorted ideas about what BBT says. Likewise, the fact that many in the public think the theory is rather ridiculous is to be expected, given their inaccurate understanding of the theory and the data behind it.

But!!

THE BIG BANG:

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

QUOTE
About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.

The origin of the Big Bang theory can be credited to Edwin Hubble. Hubble made the observation that the universe is continuously expanding. He discovered that a galaxys velocity is proportional to its distance. Galaxies that are twice as far from us move twice as fast. Another consequence is that the universe is expanding in every direction. This observation means that it has taken every galaxy the same amount of time to move from a common starting position to its current position. Just as the Big Bang provided for the foundation of the universe, Hubbles observations provided for the foundation of the Big Bang theory.

Since the Big Bang, the universe has been continuously expanding and, thus, there has been more and more distance between clusters of galaxies. This phenomenon of galaxies moving farther away from each other is known as the red shift. As light from distant galaxies approach earth there is an increase of space between earth and the galaxy, which leads to wavelengths being stretched.

and yet from NASA

WMAP Big Bang Concepts
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_concepts.html

QUOTE
Please keep in mind the following important points to avoid misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:

The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from. In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this analogy.
By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question.
It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet.
To this point, the only assumption we have made about the universe is that its matter is distributed homogeneously and isotropically on large scales. There are a number of free parameters in this family of Big Bang models that must be fixed by observations of our universe. The most important ones are: the geometry of the universe (open, flat or closed); the present expansion rate (the Hubble constant); the overall course of expansion, past and future, which is determined by the fractional density of the different types of matter in the universe. Note that the present age of the universe follows from the expansion history and present expansion rate.

As noted above, the geometry and evolution of the universe are determined by the fractional contribution of various types of matter. Since both energy density and pressure contribute to the strength of gravity in General Relativity, cosmologists classify types of matter by its "equation of state" the relationship between its pressure and energy density. The basic classification scheme is:

Radiation: composed of massless or nearly massless particles that move at the speed of light. Known examples include photons (light) and neutrinos. This form of matter is characterized by having a large positive pressure.
Baryonic matter: this is "ordinary matter" composed primarily of protons, neutrons and electrons. This form of matter has essentially no pressure of cosmological importance.
Dark matter: this generally refers to "exotic" non-baryonic matter that interacts only weakly with ordinary matter. While no such matter has ever been directly observed in the laboratory, its existence has long been suspected for reasons discussed in a subsequent page. This form of matter also has no cosmologically significant pressure.
Dark energy: this is a truly bizarre form of matter, or perhaps a property of the vacuum itself, that is characterized by a large, negative pressure. This is the only form of matter that can cause the expansion of the universe to accelerate, or speed up.
One of the central challenges in cosmology today is to determine the relative and total densities (energy per unit volume) in each of these forms of matter, since this is essential to understanding the evolution and ultimate fate of our universe.

The Code · Post by **The Code** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:25 am

Hi Harry

Some stuff I already knew about..

Get in your iron drive ,, and go to Beetle juice, it will take you 600 years at light speed. When you get back here 1200 years later, you may find a few changes. Yes i know light speed is not in our grasp just yet.. But take this into account: What was the distance between the wright brothers and the Saturn 5?

Quote:
(delta t) = (delta t propper) / sqrt (1 - u^2/c^2)
where (detla t) is the change in "time", (delta t propper) is the change in "time propper", u is the objects velocity, and c is the speed of light.
You can see that as u approaches c, the sqrt() term goes to zero and the overall equation becomes infinite. time dilation becomes infinite..Get off the bus at any point in time?

What time is it in the center of a black hole? Or even a neutron star? If time runs slower inside a huge mass then they must be closer to the BB event Years wise than us?

Quote:
time is defined by the propagation of light through space, and is affected by acceleration and gravity. According to this theory, time comes to a halt where the gravitational escape velocity equals the speed of light

Every part of time, the start and the end of our universe is accessible to things we can see. Or we know of its existence.

Now those Black holes you like to discuss: They are stuck in time soon after The BB. The big ones. I read that they were first to form after the BB. From this i Must assume That before t=0 (Nothing) was a very nice place and matter did not want to leave? A convergence of dimensions? Matter,Energy,Time,Space, The theory of METS You heard it first Here on Apod..
I,ll let somebody else take to the plate. Sorry had to be said.

Mark

apodman · Post by **apodman** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:15 am

Descriptions written by pros can be as awful as those written by amateurs. Caveat emptor.

makc · Post by **makc** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 11:44 am

mark swain wrote:If time runs slower inside a huge mass then they must be closer to the BB event Years wise than us?

what "time runs slower inside [or actually near] a huge mass" really means to you, lucky distant observer, is that there any process that you observe runs slower than the same process here, near you. but if you could actually take your nearby process with you and go there and compare again, you would find no difference.

imho, relativity would have more success with public if it was taught in terms of "perceived" time (by observer at rest in given frame). Physicists needlessly stress that it's real and not "perceived" to avoid associations of this term with illusions, and eradicate any "subjectivity" (observer) from their formulations. This makes the subject not so easy to explain, at least I think this is the way things are with russian versions of "perceived"/"real" words.

harry · Post by **harry** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:00 pm

G'day mark

You said

Now those Black holes you like to discuss: They are stuck in time soon after The BB. The big ones. I read that they were first to form after the BB. From this i Must assume That before t=0 (Nothing) was a very nice place and matter did not want to leave? A convergence of dimensions? Matter,Energy,Time,Space, The theory of METS You heard it first Here on Apod..
I,ll let somebody else take to the plate. Sorry had to be said.

Sounds quite interesting. If the Big Bang goes hand in hand with expansion of the universe, then why do we end up with so called black holes and clusters of galaxies and merges and whatever.

This paper maybe of interest.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.0315
Supermassive Black Holes as Giant Bose-Einstein Condensates

Authors: Theo M. Nieuwenhuizen
(Submitted on 2 Jul 2008)

Abstract: The Schwarzschild metric has a divergent energy density at the horizon, which motivates a new approach to black holes. If matter is spread uniformly throughout the interior of a supermassive black hole, with mass $M\sim M_\star= 2.34 10^8M_\odot$, it may arise from a Bose-Einstein condensate of densely packed H-atoms. Within the Relativistic Theory of Gravitation with a positive cosmological constant, a bosonic quantum field is coupled to the curvature scalar. In the Bose-Einstein condensed groundstate an exact, selfconsistent solution for the metric is presented. It is regular with a specific shape at the origin. The redshift at the horizon is finite but large, $z\sim 10^{14}$$M_\star/M$. The binding energy remains as an additional parameter to characterize the BH; alternatively, the mass observed at infinity can be any fraction of the rest mass of its constituents.

aristarchusinexile · Post by **aristarchusinexile** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:05 pm

bystander wrote:
What secrets have you revealed to me???
Certainly nothing I wish to repeat.

Whatsa matta Big Boy, you skeered o' th' Consensus Monster?

bystander · Post by **bystander** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:18 pm

aristarchusinexile wrote:Whatsa matta Big Boy, you skeered o' th' Consensus Monster?

I can't think of anything you have revealed that I find reasonable. Your logic (???) escapes me.

The Code · Post by **The Code** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 12:06 am

makc wrote:what "time runs slower inside [or actually near] a huge mass" really means to you, lucky distant observer, is that there any process that you observe runs slower than the same process here, near you. but if you could actually take your nearby process with you and go there and compare again, you would find no difference.

What? ^^^ Two clocks, one runs slower. I don't need to go there to prove it. Mr Einstein Told me.

apodman wrote:Descriptions written by pros can be as awful as those written by amateurs. Caveat emptor.

What? If you are able to disprove what i wrote,,, You may make a few people very unhappy...

Mark

apodman · Post by **apodman** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 12:32 am

mark swain wrote:
apodman wrote:Descriptions written by pros can be as awful as those written by amateurs. Caveat emptor.

What? If you are able to disprove what i wrote,,, You may make a few people very unhappy...

I was referring to the authorities quoted by Harry, not to anything you wrote. Maybe next time, but I'd doubt it since there is no real reason to disprove most of what you write.

astrolabe · Post by **astrolabe** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:16 am

Hello apodman,

I think Mark has the right idea. I get the impression that distance is not a factor here, only acceleration. But something tells me you already know that.

aristarchusinexile · Post by **aristarchusinexile** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 1:04 pm

bystander wrote:
aristarchusinexile wrote:Whatsa matta Big Boy, you skeered o' th' Consensus Monster?
I can't think of anything you have revealed that I find reasonable. Your logic (???) escapes me.

It was purely a joke, Bystander. Remember, however, that some authorities declare 'reason and remaliah' as the enemies of truth'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason

aristarchusinexile · Post by **aristarchusinexile** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 1:06 pm

astrolabe wrote:Hello apodman,

I think Mark has the right idea. I get the impression that distance is not a factor here, only acceleration. But something tells me you already know that.

Just a reminder that distance could easily be a non-factor in non-locality, and acceleration is definitely a non-factor, both events occuring >t<

The Code · Post by **The Code** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 12:16 am

harry wrote:Sounds quite interesting. If the Big Bang goes hand in hand with expansion of the universe, then why do we end up with so called black holes and clusters of galaxies and merges and whatever.

Hi Harry

There is another reason for expansion Which is very complicated to explain. But i will... Another time. Your link explained the reason for old black holes just fine. As for your clusters of galaxies,,,, When you look up into the sky at night and you see the amazing show,, all is not what is seems. Gravity,,, Time,,,( But light remains Constant...... ? )

Mark