Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law???
From: glbrad01 (glbrad01_at_insightbb.com)
Date: 10/07/04
- Next message: John Griffin: "Re: OMG! 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon Bldg!"
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: The role of exchange particles in force"
- In reply to: Patrick Powers: "Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law???"
- Next in thread: TomGee: "Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law???"
- Reply: TomGee: "Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law???"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 10:02:40 GMT
Your wrong in the time of "13 billion years." If light travels 78 billion
years, 78 billion light years, that sets the time and the time cannot be
less. Thanks for correcting my own post concerning this figure--I put it at
76 billion light years by mistake--though you weren't addressing my post.
The claim is that we are looking out farther and ever farther back in time
to the beginning of the Universe. This presupposes time does not turnover,
that it is an "arrow" one end of which is the so-called Big Bang, there and
then, and the other end is the Earth, here and now (at least here). No
change, no event, occurs at this end, "now," that does not blow up the
balloon some more and lengthen the arrow that much more. Not a single second
passes on Earth, or rather at this end, that the arrow does not
correspondingly lengthen by one more light second and the Universe expand by
exactly that much in space-time (300,000 kilometers more of spatial increase
to the Universe, radially--blowing up the entire bubble or balloon that much
more, to that one second's passage in time (300,000 kilometers per second)).
Of course there is no space whatsoever along the arrow between Earth here
and now and the Big Bang there and then, regardless of the fact that Stephen
Hawking himself, in his immensely popular book "A Brief History of Time,"
said that if we were to travel out from the Earth, in space, in the
direction of the Big Bang, we would be traveling back in time (through
space). Such was even illustrated in the book as a bubble with a flat lens,
representing the Universe, at its equator half way between the beginning in
the so-called Big Bang and the end (at the time thought to be the "Big
Crush"). Now they simply have it as a big cone shape telescoping out with
the lens of the flat Universe at the large aperture end--of course. As to
Hawking, he has done a lot of mind changing since that time, I do believe.
It doesn't matter though, change is turnover, as in a wheel turning, it is
not an arrow. A wheel turning usually has reasonably straight spokes running
from the turning hub to the equally turning rim, and if the hub is zero, and
the rim is the distant horizon, the wheel will have rolled in turnover of
time forever and will roll in turnover of time forever. The Universe could
be infinite in space, eternal in time, but the spokes running out in
straight lines from any zero time point or hub (time at 300,000 kilometers
per second, 300,000 kilometers of space to each and every second of time, is
exactly zero) to the distant horizon or rim--be it 13.7 billion light years
or 78 billion light years, or whatever length--will have measurably finite
total length.
How old are the galaxies observed at a distance of 13.4 billion light
years distant from Earth. Cosmologists assume only 300 million years old.
They assumed this at the time of discovery since they assumed the Universe
to be 13.7 billion years old. By that distance, or at some distance not far
beyond that and maybe even short, to well short, of it, I presume quantum
accumulation and effects, and a lot of gravitation and gravitational effects
accumulating between, in the picture of time between here and now and there
and then will begin to change the picture, warp it in as yet unknown ways,
and play awesome tricks upon astronomers and cosmologists in the same way
Planck predicted quantum effects would accumulate to the point of quantum
chaos and vast warping in the picture the farther the distance looked down
into in nuclear--inner--space. Whether toward the infinite or towqrd the
infinitesimal, the attempted reach in looking across ever increasing
distance will end in collapse, a collapsed horizon that will not be
penetrated or resolved any further from this awesome distance in time from
it. We may still see something there, or detect something there, but it will
have nothing to do reality on the spot. Relativity, vis-a-vis time between
here and now and there and then, will have broken down totally, starting its
breakdown from the end of our noses moving outward in space and time toward
those far reaches. We just lose relativity far faster, far nearer, for space
than for time but the losses regarding relativity, both the nearer and the
farther, just accelerate in loss. Relativity accelerates in its breakdown
with all accumulating distance between entities in either space or time, or
even in velocity. Unreality begins invading, corrupting and gradually taking
over the picture with continually accumulating distance and accumulating
complexity and chaos. To the Universe though, probably even "unreality" has
its place, its own clearly identifiable entity, and its uses to the Universe
and maybe to us into the bargain.
Brad
"Patrick Powers" <frisbieinstein@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9511688f.0410062216.ff5184a@posting.google.com...
> herbertglazier@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in message
> news:<18333-416138D0-143@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net>...
>> It must if speed,and gravity can change its rate of flow.We know time is
>> not a constant. Clocks tick at different speeds in different areas of
>> the cosmos. Does the accelerating expansion of space slow time? One
>> could create a theory that goes like this."Time runs slower the closer
>> you get to the universe's expanding horizon." If the universe's
>> horizon speed is now faster than the speed of light(no reason why not)
>> things could get very tricky. Bert
>
> Some original thinking here. But the universe's expanding horizon is
> just like the rainbow: you can't get any closer to it or further from
> it no matter what you do.
>
>
>> If the universe's
>> horizon speed is now faster than the speed of light(no reason why not)
>
> You have confused two things: the horizon and change of the curvature
> radius of the universe. Distance to horizon <= curvature radius of
> the universe.
> Distance to horizon = 30 billion light years.
> Curvature radius >= 78 billion light years. Could be infinite.
>
> After that I don't really understand the relationship very well. but
> you are right: the universe is only 13 billion years old but the
> horizon is much further than that, and the reason is the increase in
> the curvature radius.
- Next message: John Griffin: "Re: OMG! 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon Bldg!"
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: The role of exchange particles in force"
- In reply to: Patrick Powers: "Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law???"
- Next in thread: TomGee: "Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law???"
- Reply: TomGee: "Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law???"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
