Starship Asterisk*

The BB made more Space Time, than, what we see as matter. Why? Does Space Time have to clump together because of the Form it took before the BB? That been so, Space time been a physical entity, Does it Flow like water? The Less the Flow the more restricted by time you are? Where stars are concerned, The Bigger they are, They die very fast, Because time is on fast forward. Yet when gravity is very powerful like a 4 million solar mass Bh time is very different.

I have not got to my question yet, i have one more point. if time also changes by speed, How can all those time zones work With just one clock? With out stretching time out of all proportions?

tc

The Code wrote:The BB made more Space Time, than, what we see as matter. Why? Does Space Time have to clump together because of the Form it took before the BB? That been so, Space time been a physical entity, Does it Flow like water? The Less the Flow the more restricted by time you are? Where stars are concerned, The Bigger they are, They die very fast, Because time is on fast forward. Yet when gravity is very powerful like a 4 million solar mass Bh time is very different.

I have not got to my question yet, i have one more point. if time also changes by speed, How can all those time zones work With just one clock? With out stretching time out of all proportions?

Time doesn't "change by speed". The lifetime of a star has nothing to do with how time flows. Space-time wasn't made by the BB, except in the most limited sense. It isn't a physical entity that you can have "more" of. It isn't related to matter (or energy). It doesn't clump. It doesn't flow.

I don't think you understood what I just said Chris. There are several things I could post, that explains what I just said. Mostly Brian Cox, He told me, mostly nothing is known about time? And what is said, is mostly speculation. And then there was Gravity, Nice try, but no cigar? My words are mostly speculation too. But I only use the information at hand. And I see Different time zones ,,,, I have also read Hawkins too. I must also point out, that i understand GR and SR. Now I understand, the slower you go, this effects Time. The Faster you go, Same as. But they both have a different effect.

You do not need to be a rocket scientist to work out, that we can clearly see two different time zones .

Voyager 1 left the solar system, How many seconds difference to the earth? Time wise? But there is a difference Isn't there?

Now times that by 90 billion light years.

tc

swainy (tc) wrote:I don't think you understood what I just said Chris. There are several things I could post, that explains what I just said. Mostly Brian Cox, He told me, mostly nothing is known about time? And what is said, is mostly speculation. And then there was Gravity, Nice try, but no cigar? My words are mostly speculation too. But I only use the information at hand. And I see Different time zones ,,,, I have also read Hawkins too. I must also point out, that i understand GR and SR. Now I understand, the slower you go, this effects Time. The Faster you go, Same as. But they both have a different effect.

Cox is wrong. Or more likely, he's oversimplifying things for a particular, non-scientific audience. In fact, lots is known about time, lots is known about space-time, lots is known about matter/energy, and lots is known about gravity.

Time is not affected by mass or by speed. All that is affected is how time in one frame of reference appears from a different frame of reference. That is a very different thing than suggesting time itself is somehow affected. If you actually understood SR and GR, you'd know this. Time is not a thing, any more than length is a thing. It's a dimensional value, that's all- a way of measuring space-time.

Thanks Chris pure quality that. I will be Back!

tc

Chris Peterson wrote:Cox is wrong. Or more likely, he's oversimplifying things for a particular, non-scientific audience. In fact, lots is known about time, lots is known about space-time, lots is known about matter/energy, and lots is known about gravity.

Care to enlighten us?

A How does time work?
B Lots "as you say" is known about space Time. How does that fit in with Expansion?
C Is Energy as complex,as we see Matter Is?
D From the bare roots, how did Gravity come about? And how does it work?

I will only be happy, with all five of them answered.

tc

swainy (tc) wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:Cox is wrong. Or more likely, he's oversimplifying things for a particular, non-scientific audience. In fact, lots is known about time, lots is known about space-time, lots is known about matter/energy, and lots is known about gravity.

Care to enlighten us?

No. You can study these things yourself. I'd suggest starting with Wikipedia and then following references.

A How does time work?

The question is meaningless.

B Lots "as you say" is known about space Time. How does that fit in with Expansion?

Space-time is what is expanding.

C Is Energy as complex,as we see Matter Is?

The question is meaningless.

D From the bare roots, how did Gravity come about? And how does it work?

How gravity "came about" is probably not a scientific question. How it works is described very elegantly by GR.

Chris Peterson wrote:No. You can study these things yourself. I'd suggest starting with Wikipedia and then following references.

That's a No Then.

And to think, i was about to open up! how? I here you ask. Here is a glimpse. The Moon, The Earth, both have different Mass. Why is the Gravity on the Moon different? What Does Mass Have to do with It? If you drop a hammer on the Moon, from the same height you drop a hammer on Earth, "Time" Comes into Question. If the distance of the drop is the same, but the mass is different, yet the time is different, how do you explain a constant Gravity? Gravity is constant according to mass. Yeah? But Time changes according to distance/Mass? Why? Is It Because Of distance or speed/ or Mass? If all the Mass, including all matter in the Universe was Absorbing "Time" A physical thing Created by the BB. Then that would explain an awful lot.

tc

swainy (tc) wrote:The Moon, The Earth, both have different Mass. Why is the Gravity on the Moon different? What Does Mass Have to do with It?

GR answers that question rigorously, although Newtonian physics is quite adequate in this case.

If you drop a hammer on the Moon, from the same height you drop a hammer on Earth, "Time" Comes into Question. If the distance of the drop is the same, but the mass is different, yet the time is different, how do you explain a constant Gravity?

Time is just one dimension of space-time. Again, it isn't a physical thing. Why do you think you will observe different times for objects of different masses which fall the same distance in the same gravitational field?

Gravity is constant according to mass.

I don't know what that means.

But Time changes according to distance/Mass?

No, it does not.

If all the Mass, including all matter in the Universe was Absorbing "Time" A physical thing Created by the BB. Then that would explain an awful lot.

I don't know what it is you are needing to explain. And I don't see how your conjecture explains anything at all.

Chris Peterson wrote:I don't know what it is you are needing to explain. And I don't see how your conjecture explains anything at all.

I was trying to understand "Time" / "Gravity" : The Only way I can explain my thoughts, Are. We Have satellites orbiting Earth, satellite Navigation, Tv, Communication, etc etc. Those Clocks on those satellites need to be adjusted, Because "time" is Different on them. Why do those clocks need to be adjusted? They are Traveling + Or - 17,000 mph. Not much difference than the speed around the sun, like the Earth. But as voyager 1 moved further away from the Sun, what happened to the clock? baring in mind its speed increased to 50,000 mph? Give or take. The sun Must have a clock? And We must be wrapped in its "time"?

I'm not trying to explain anything, But I am trying to understand "Time" / "Gravity". I very much doubt i ever will.

Mark

swainy (tc) wrote:We Have satellites orbiting Earth, satellite Navigation, Tv, Communication, etc etc. Those Clocks on those satellites need to be adjusted, Because "time" is Different on them. Why do those clocks need to be adjusted?

The clocks are running at exactly the rate they were designed to run. As are ours here on Earth. Motion is not affecting time. But the clocks on the satellites and the clocks here on Earth are operating in different frames of reference. The clocks in either "believe" they are running correctly and the others are not. That's what relativity is all about! (In this example, gravity is not involved; we're talking Special Relativity here.)

Chris Peterson wrote:

swainy (tc) wrote:We Have satellites orbiting Earth, satellite Navigation, Tv, Communication, etc etc. Those Clocks on those satellites need to be adjusted, Because "time" is Different on them. Why do those clocks need to be adjusted?

The clocks are running at exactly the rate they were designed to run. As are ours here on Earth. Motion is not affecting time. But the clocks on the satellites and the clocks here on Earth are operating in different frames of reference. The clocks in either "believe" they are running correctly and the others are not. That's what relativity is all about! (In this example, gravity is not involved; we're talking Special Relativity here.)

Chris, do you have "Time" to explain "Special Relativity" a bit ??

beyond wrote:Chris, do you have "Time" to explain "Special Relativity" a bit ??

Special relativity describes how to make measurements in or between inertial reference frames- that is, frames where any motion is uniform, not changing. (Technically, the example with satellites does require general relativity for a complete analysis, because the reference frame of the satellites isn't strictly inertial- but it's very close, and SR provides a pretty close approximation.)

The two main observational features of SR are time contraction and length contraction, in which these properties appear different when viewed from a different inertial frame of reference. If something whizzes by you, you'll think it is shorter than it actually is (in the direction of motion), and if it has a clock, you'll think that clock is ticking too slowly. Paradoxically (to intuition, not to mathematical analysis) the thing whizzing by will think exactly the same thing about you. Fundamentally, the apparent paradoxes are resolved by recognizing that what is simultaneous in one frame need not be in another.

The energy-mass equivalence, E=mc², comes out of the mathematics of SR.

GR deals with measurements between non-inertial frames- when you have acceleration of some sort. Since gravity is equivalent (in a sense) to acceleration, GR is used to describe that force.

That's about as much time as I have. In case you missed them, there are some nice video lectures by RJN about both SR and GR in the Physics X forum right here on the Asterisk.

beyond wrote:Chris, do you have "Time" to explain "Special Relativity" a bit ??

Chris Peterson wrote:That's about as much time as I have. In case you missed them, there are some nice video lectures by RJN about both SR and GR in the Physics X forum right here on the Asterisk.

The Math does not Add up. I heard it, And saw it. You get a meaningless answer. I do not have a key for infinity. Gr8t!

"Time" to move On?

A: What is time?

B: What is the cause of Gravity?

Both Hold the Key to the Answer's we are looking for.

tc

The Code wrote:A: What is time?

Answered, and in many respects understood.

B: What is the cause of Gravity?

Well understood, and fully described by GR. Whether gravity can be understood in term of QM is still an open question.

Again, you're looking for answers that already exist.

Chris Peterson wrote:

The Code wrote:A: What is time?

Answered, and in many respects understood.

B: What is the cause of Gravity?

Well understood, and fully described by GR. Whether gravity can be understood in term of QM is still an open question.

Again, you're looking for answers that already exist.

No, Chris. They are not. I Must now quote:

This is what your talking about

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkCWywO9 ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfCv9GLw ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-mrj1qr ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAqSCuHA ... re=related

Please watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z30z38M- ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4YijO9o ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojW3sq_7 ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUygQI9g ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhNeJbbA ... re=related

As you can see, This is all in the in tray. The out tray is empty

tc

The Code wrote:
No, Chris. They are not. I Must now quote:

This is what your talking about

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkCWywO9 ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfCv9GLw ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-mrj1qr ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAqSCuHA ... re=related

Please watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z30z38M- ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4YijO9o ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojW3sq_7 ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUygQI9g ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhNeJbbA ... re=related

As you can see, This is all in the in tray. The out tray is empty :cry:

Sorry, but I see nothing convincing or useful there. I don't get my science from the BBC.

tc

Chris Peterson wrote:

The Code wrote:
No, Chris. They are not. I Must now quote:

This is what your talking about

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkCWywO9 ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfCv9GLw ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-mrj1qr ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAqSCuHA ... re=related

Please watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z30z38M- ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4YijO9o ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojW3sq_7 ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUygQI9g ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhNeJbbA ... re=related

As you can see, This is all in the in tray. The out tray is empty

Sorry, but I see nothing convincing or useful there. I don't get my science from the BBC.

Well done Chris: you managed to watch 2 hours of scientific programs in around 6 minutes. Good Job.

Mark, aside from the BBC videos, what other resources have you used to aid your understanding? Did you watch the lectures available here on Asterisk? Read the suggested Wikipedia articles? Read a textbook or two? Take a class, either traditional or online? It might help if you referred to (mainstream, well-respected) resources when you frame your questions. And by "referred," I don't mean just a bunch of links, but specific references ("My understanding from pages 343-344 of this book is that blah blah blah, but I am unable to connect that with the equations and calculations on pages 346. I get hung up on this calculation.").

You didn't quote anything in your post; you just listed links for what you say is two hours of video. Two hours! Be specific in framing your questions if you want specific answers, rather than just posting a bunch of links and demanding that someone else spend two hours watching videos to try to figure out what your questions are! Sheesh.

Hi owlice. And Happy New Year, to one and all.

There are no answers to my specific questions. Just approximations.

The answers are there to find, when confronted with a dead end in a maze, what do you do? You have to realize its a dead end first? What happens if a few folk, before you, got you deeper into several untraceable dead ends? You can not say, you have cut the lawn, until every blade of grass has been cut.

The Human Race, does not have long to get off this rock. And if the powers that seem to be, say its close to impossible, we need to use every second to work out how.

My two pennies worth of stab in the dark, are worth more than money can buy. I am trying to help. Look back through the ages, and see how others, who tried to help got treated. But before I get a token of stab in the dark good will, Please realize, at the age of five, I really did not want to read general relativity. I had no choice.

tc

And a happy new year to you as well!

You're no longer five, so why you bring up what you couldn't do at age five, I can't imagine; you couldn't drive then, either. Does that mean you never learned to drive? And if you don't ask specific questions, yeah, I can believe you think they don't have answers, even after they have been answered.

As for the lawn, I can certainly say it's been cut even if every blade of grass has not been cut. Some of the grass won't be long enough to get cut; that does not negate the mowing (thank goodness!! I hate mowing my lawn!!).

Chris Peterson wrote: B: What is the cause of Gravity?


Well understood, and fully described by GR. Whether gravity can be understood in term of QM is still an open question.

owlice wrote:You're no longer five, so why you bring up what you couldn't do at age five, I can't imagine; you couldn't drive then, either. Does that mean you never learned to drive? And if you don't ask specific questions, yeah, I can believe you think they don't have answers, even after they have been answered.

????????????????????


So if Gravity has been answered, You would think they would stop looking for it. And the elusive particle That gives Matter its Mass.

The Graviton and the LHC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG-r-oTrBMM

tc

swainy (tc) wrote:So if Gravity has been answered, You would think they would stop looking for it. And the elusive particle That gives Matter its Mass.

The graviton is not the particle that gives matter its mass. Mass is an intrinsic property. The graviton is not needed to explain gravity, either. So what is the graviton? It is a hypothetical particle proposed to be the carrier of the gravity field in a quantum analysis of gravity. Why are they looking for gravitons? Because it would help tie GR and QM together. But nobody knows if the two actually can be tied together.

Chris Peterson wrote:

swainy (tc) wrote:So if Gravity has been answered, You would think they would stop looking for it. And the elusive particle That gives Matter its Mass.

The graviton is not the particle that gives matter its mass. Mass is an intrinsic property. The graviton is not needed to explain gravity, either. So what is the graviton? It is a hypothetical particle proposed to be the carrier of the gravity field in a quantum analysis of gravity. Why are they looking for gravitons? Because it would help tie GR and QM together. But nobody knows if the two actually can be tied together.

Which brings me back to my original question. Does Matter/Gravitons/Higgs Boson, absorb space and time? Everywhere I go, Scientists describing "Time" flowing like a river. Where is that river going?

tc

swainy (tc) wrote:Which brings me back to my original question. Does Matter/Gravitons/Higgs Boson, absorb space and time?

No.

Everywhere I go, Scientists describing "Time" flowing like a river. Where is that river going?

It's an analogy, and not a good one. Don't get too focused on it. Time is not like a river. Not at all.