Why Does Time Fly?

Antti · Last edited by Antti on Sun May 25, 2008 8:04 pm; edited 9 times in total

Why Does Time Fly?

http://www.antti-roine.com/download/file.php?id=110&mode=view
Fig. 1: Our Earth moves againts the red (blueshifted) area in the all-sky map from the COBE satellite (inverse colors). The opposite side of the sky is blue (redshifted). It is quite a coincidence that the angle between Earth cruising path and the Great Void in Eridanus constellation is 90 degrees.

Today many scientists believe in the Big Bang and time travel because nobody wants to question the primary assumptions, i.e. it is much easier to repair the old models using new parameters, dimensions, strings and iron wire. However, if the primary assumptions are wrong then it is very difficult to find the correct answers to many basic questions, for example:

1. Why is the speed of light relatively constant?

2. Why do chemists talk about the rate and speed of processes but physicists talk about time dilatation, time coordinate system changes and time travel?

3. Why is the difference between experimental observations and a theoretical model normally referred to as an "error" but in cosmology, it is called "dark energy”?

4. Why do we assume that universe is just expanding after "Big Bang"? We do not need fictional "dark energy" if we assume that the whole universe is rotating - like electrons, planets and galaxies does.

5. Why do we assume that gravity is an inter-material pulling force?

6. How two atoms at the opposite side of the universe can attract each other’s – in spite of the huge distances? Pulling graviton particle with negative impulse, mass, speed and energy sounds as an absurd explanation.

7. Why antimatter and matter did not destroy each others at the begining of Big Bang?

8. Our Earth moves around the Sun (30 km/sec) and Sun moves around the Milky Way (220 km/sec). Why our Local Group with 50 galaxies or more moves at a speed of 600 - 700 km/s relative to the whole universe? The fictional Great Attractor is not a convincing explanation with vague location and nature.

9. Why observed redshift values of distant objects lead to recession speeds up to speed of light or even higher?

10. According to the mainstream Big Bang theory our universe should be quite uniform without any specific center. Why experimental observations do not agree with this conclusion? Our universe has actually extremely complicated but still organized structure with great clusters of galaxies, immense superclusters, huge voids, Great Wall, etc.

We think that gravity pulls a pencil down to the floor if we drop it. However, we may find new routes and explanations if we have the courage to assume that gravity pushes the pencil down to the floor. This simple reassessment will lead to very different and exciting conclusions compared to the traditional way of thinking; but of course, the ultimate truth will be found by comparing and testing different assumptions with experimental observations. Science is based on good assumptions, experimental observations and wise conclusions.

What is time made of?

Time may be regarded either as a simple phenomenon or as a great mystery, depending on our point of view. It is easy to understand what the other physical or chemical base units represent, however, we may ask what does time measure and what is time made of?

We can measure length using the metric gauge and time using the clock. However, the clock measures the oscillation speed of quartz crystal, the sundial measures the rotation speed of the earth and the calendar measures the orbital speed of the earth around the sun. Ie. clocks do not measure time but they measure speed and movement.

Time exists because the world is changing all the time. Time stops when all motion stops. However, without motion our world would die because the orbital motion of the celestial spheres and the atomic particles prevents the collapse of our world, i.e. time is made from the motion of our universe. Time is a relative phenomenon, because the speed of motion depends on the comparison point and because the speed of all processes depends on the local prevailing conditions, such as temperature, speed, gravity, etc.

In this respect time is not a base unit but a derived mathematical unit, which is created from motion and speed. Time is a very practical and handy tool, which makes it possible to arrange and organize events and activities in a reasonable order. However, time is not the fourth dimension, where we can freely move as we can in the other three dimensions. The other base units are also based on motion: electric current is the motion of electrons, light intensity is the motion of photons, temperature is the oscillation of atoms and mass is the inertia of material when it is moved. Length gives the distance of the motion and the amount of material gives the number of moving particles.

Time Machine

The time machine has already been invented, however, it only works forwards. Nearly all of us have such an appliance in our home. We can easily test it by leaving a tomato for two weeks on the table and the other one in the fridge. Time passes more slowly in the fridge because the tomato that was in the fridge seems to be younger than the one on the table, because the low temperature slows down the chemical reactions.

A similar ILLUSION may be created using two accurate clocks. One clock is placed on a plane and the other one on the ground. When the plane comes back, the clock on the plane seems to have lost some time. The substantial movement of the plane in the gravitational field slows down physical processes. This phenomenon is based on process and reaction kinetics and not on a variation in time or exchange of time-space coordinate system, because time is purely a mathematical creation, which arises from real physical or spiritual motion.

All internal motion and “time” stops at the speed of light. Light proceeds using a waveform in the pervasive gravitational energy field at a relatively constant speed, like sound in the air. A homogenous energy field must exist because the speed of light does not depend on the light source speed, neither does it depend on the energy level of the radiation. The old “ether” ocean cannot exist because a material medium would gradually slow down the speed of the photons, electrons and celestial spheres and such an effect has not been observed. However, even the emptiest cubic meter in the universe contains some particles (atoms, protons, photons, etc.), which may interact with the gravity-energy field and radiation to some extent.

The celestial spheres, i.e. material, create holes or valleys in the gravity field. The pressure of gravitation compresses the material and forces the atomic particles to slow down, which will also slow down “time”. The pressure of gravitation, high temperature and nuclear reactions transform the material into energy in the sun. A black hole, extreme gravity and low temperature will transform this energy back into material, which may be released with other forms of energy, for example, in black hole collisions. There is a huge amount of dark material in space that is difficult to see because it does not emit light or other waveforms of energy, but it may be observed indirectly by measuring orbital speeds of the spheres.

Gravity Fills Space

Gravity-energy fills space and only material makes it visible; material is not the source of gravity, but it is the destination. Gravitation is not an inter-material pulling force; rather it is a propulsive force of space that pushes material together. It is very difficult to imagine an inter-material pulling force, which would arise from one individual atom and would attract an other atom at the opposite side of the universe. The all-round gravity ocean feels much more logical explanation for the force which affects within huge distances. Any size of material particles speeds up at exactly the same rate within this gravity flow. The mass of material increases with speed because the material particles interacts with the gravity field.

The old Newtonian laws of gravity work nicely in local conditions because they are blind to the direction of the gravity field. We may also remember that an electric current flows in the opposite direction to what was originally assumed, but the basic equations still work. However, on a large scale, Newton and Einstein formulas do not agree with experimental observations. For example, the observed expansion speed of the universe is much larger than the calculated one. This error is so huge that some 70% of fictional “dark energy” is needed to compensate this apparent error. An-other disagreement may be found between the calculated and observed Doppler shifts of Pioneer 10 and 11 radio signals.

It is the pressure of the gravitation field with rotation of the whole universe that expands the universe, not some mystic dark energy. Gravitation turns into heat and other energy forms when it hits matter, and this creates the 3 Kelvin cosmic background radiation glow, heats celestial spheres and has many other effects. Without this extra energy source the black body radiation would cool down the cosmic background radiation in a “few” years down to 0 Kelvin, because the black horizon at the edge of the universe is huge. The gravity field may also be one reason why a lot of energy is needed to reach the absolute zero temperature in the laboratory. Different forms of gravity-energy ocean may even be the primary fuel of the universe, which feeds energy to the celestial systems.

The heat effect of the gravity-energy field is difficult to measure with a calorimeter because this effect is smaller than the accuracy of a standard calorimeter and because we cannot insert the whole earth into a calorimeter. However, on a large scale the heat effect of the gravity field and nuclear reactions are palpable. This heat effect becomes evident some kilometers under our feet and also inside the other celestial spheres, making their core hot. Energy and material never disappear, they are only transformed; this is a basic fact that we can rely upon.

Latest experimental measurements show that the temperatures of the most distant spheres, like Pluto and Charon, are quite high. There may be even liquid water under the surface of Charon. This may be explained by nuclear reactions but also by heating effect of the gravity field.

Speed of Gravity

The gravity-energy field is extremely difficult to observe experimentally because it is homogeneous unlike the electromagnetic energy, which is made of definite energy particles like photons. The gravity energy must be homogeneous because gravity particles have not been found despite of huge experimental efforts. Gravity density is larger in the “empty” space than on the surface of the large celestial bodies, because matter consumes gravity-energy. This creates the gravity-energy flow straight into the suns, planets and other spheres. The gravity-energy flow into the sun may be one explanation for the observed high plasma temperatures over the sun surface, the internal nuclear reactions inside the sun cannot create these temperatures.

The speed of the gravity flow must be extremely high because the acceleration of gravity does not depend on the starting speed of the falling objects and because the delay of the gravity field has not yet been observed. The accelerating gravity flow near the massive celestial objects bends the light, just like the optical lens, this effect has been experimentally observed. The speed of gravity flow into the black hole must be much higher than the speed of light because the light photon cannot proceed against this extremely fast headwind.

Gravity flow pushes the material objects downward because the gravity-energy density is smaller near the earth than up in the sky, just vice versa than traditionally believed. The material objects move in the space without “friction” because the gravity pressure at each side of the object is the same in the “empty” space, i.e. gravity gradient is missing in weightless environment.

The speed of gravity is far from constant; the speed depends mainly on the nearby material objects. The speed is high because there is nothing else, which can brake or slow down the speed than the “viscosity” of the gravity field itself. According to the experimental measurements the speed of light seems to be quite constant. For example, Michelson-Morley (1887) or Hils and Hall (1990) did not found any differences in their experimental measurements. If this is true then the light cannot escape from the black hole because light bends backward due to the gravity-energy flow.

It is also possible that the light speed differences have not yet been found because the gravity speed differences within the experimental apparatus have been too small or the vertical vs. horizontal speed of light comparison has not been made. If this is true then the gravity headwind will slow down the speed of light because the photon particles interacts slightly with the accelerating gravity field like the material particles does. However, much more experiments are needed to verify the real situation.

The space or gravity field must have some kind of buffer effect because the gravity waves has not yet been detected in spite of the huge explosions which have been observed in the nearby galaxies and in the Milky Way. Ie. the space or gravity-energy field must be elastic and viscose in some extent. It seems that we are extremely lucky also in this respect, because violent gravity waves could cause lot of damage on the earth.

Center of the Universe

http://www.antti-roine.com/download/file.php?id=96&mode=view
Fig.2: Earth is moving (400 km/sec) towards Leo constellation and Milky Way is moving (600 km/sec) towards Crater. The angle between our cruising course and Giant Void in Eridanus is 90 degrees. This may mean that the Giant Void is the center of our universe.

Center of the Universe has no meaning in the context of today's cosmology, based on the general relativity. However, some errors may exist in the basic assumptions, because so many mysterious explanations are needed - like the Great Attractor or "Dark Energy".

According to the latest observations the universe looks like the foam on beer. The visible galaxies and material are located on the surfaces and edges of the individual bubbles of this cellular foam. Everything is rotating in orbits in our universe; electrons, planets, galaxies, etc. It is very probable that the whole universe is also rotating around some huge black holes, which may look like a huge dark galaxy. In other words, all galaxies are rotating around the same massive gravity wells, which may be the primary source and destination point of the gravity-energy flow.

If the gravity flow has destination points then it should also have source points. The secondary source points may be located in the middle of the cellular foam bubbles of space. From this location the linear gravity wind blows matter onto the bubble surfaces. Usually all the energy and matter circulate in the universe, therefore the primary source of gravity could be located near the center of the universe; and huge black holes may transmit gravity-energy back to the universe using some primordial gravity energy form. This primary pure energy form cannot react with the material as the gravity-energy does, because this interaction would mix up the celestial systems when this primordial gravity energy flows out from the center to the borders of our Universe.

If these exceptional but still logical assumptions are correct, then the center of our universe may be found from the midpoint of the orbital movement of all the galaxies. This orbital movement of the galaxies is difficult to verify because long time observations are needed due to the huge distances, but even now it seems that the galaxies move like a string of pearls within the universe. Some galaxy layers may even revolve around the center of the Universe in the opposite directions but still around the same focal point, this may also cause some confusion. The midpoints of our solar system and the Milky Way are much easier and faster to find out by observing the orbital movement of planets and suns.

The rotation of the whole universe is more logical explanation for the expansion of the universe than the "Dark Energy". "Centrifugal force" keeps the solar system in balance with pushing gravity, these same forces operate also in much larger scale. However, the rotation of the universe is more difficult to observe than rotation of the solar system because we have no fixed reference points outside our universe like stars. Maybe the most obvious evidence of this orbital rotation is the fictitious "Dark Energy".

Our Earth moves around the Sun (30 km/sec) and Sun moves around the Milky Way (220 km/sec). Speed of the Earth relative to the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) is some 400 km/s. The Milky Way belongs to our Local Group of Galaxies with some 50 other members. Why our Local Group moves at a speed of about 600 km/s relative to the whole universe? The fictional Great Attractor is not a convincing explanation with vague location and nature. The Great Attractor with more than 100000 galaxies has been estimated to locate 250 million light years from the Milky Way, in the direction of the Hydra and Centaurus constellation, however, no one has yet seen it.

Huge empty void was found from our universe in summer 2007 about distance of 6 - 10 billion light years (bly) away from the earth. The diameter of this void is one billion light years, which is 15000 times more than the diameter of our Milky Way galaxy. The diameter of Milky Way is only 65000 light years. This void locates in Eridanus system near Orion. The latest COBE satellite and some earlier results show that our Earth is moving much faster than estimated from the observed orbital movements.

According to COBE measurements our Earth is moving towards Leo constellation using speed of 400 km per second. The Milky Way is moving towards Crater, the speed is 600 km per second (some older sources talk about Centaurus - Hydra). It is quite a coincidence that the angle between Earth cruising path and Giant Void in Eridanus is 90 degrees! In this mean the Giant Void in Eridanus may be the center of our universe. If this idea can be verified then we do not need the fictional Great Attractor at Crater or Centaurus direction. Ofcourse this is still only a logical guess, but most of the scientific facts have been found by testing logical guesses. Lot of experimental research is, however, needed before we can say that the center of the universe have been found. (This chapter was added at 19 February, 2008).

Redshift and Tired Light

One cornerstone of the Big Bang theory is Doppler redshift which increase wave length of the light, when a light source moves away from the observer.

However, many experimentally observed redshift values of distant objects are so large (5.5 - 6.3), that they indicate recession speed which is 96% of the speed of light or even faster, because redshift values up to 20 has been observed. This sounds incredible overspeed even for the distant galaxies and quasars.

The light seems to interact with the gravity. For example, gravity bends light (gravitational lenses). Light also looses energy when it moves away from the massive objects, this is called gravitational redshift. Both these effects have experimentally been verified.

If we assume that the gravity fills the space, then the first conclusion is that the light loose energy and increase wave lenght when photons travel millions of light years through this gravity ocean. The light loose energy exactly in the same way in the gravitational redshift when it travels against the extremely fast gravity flow. In this mean the observed cosmological redshift is combined effect of the Doppler redshift and photon interactions with the gravity field.

The gravity field must be homogeneous, because quantum based gravity field would make images of the high redshift objects fuzzy due to scattering with the photon and graviton particles. However, they appear as clear and sharp as the low redshift objects. The gravitational redshift phenomenon is linear without any steps, this also supports homogeneous gravity ocean assumption. However, much more experimental data, for example, of the gravitational redshift is still needed, to clarify the real nature of the gravitation.

The 'tired light idea' gives also a nice explanation for the 'Dark Sky Paradox". The sky with billions of stars and galaxies is dark because visible light looses energy and turns invisible infrared one, when it travels millions of light years within the homogeneous gravity ocean.

Fluid Dynamic Model of the Universe

The gravity-energy-space approach will give a much more realistic and comprehensive understanding of the real universe than the old fictive time-space approach. Even the new string theory has not been able to explain the construction of the universe in spite of huge investments in this theory. A gravity-space standpoint could make it possible to model the movement of tiny celestial spheres in the vast gravity ocean using computational fluid dynamic (CFD) software with small modifications.

The earth and moon may be used to verify the necessary basic parameters for the fluid dynamic model of the universe. The gravity flows with high speed towards the spheres, which move slowly in this gravity-energy ocean without friction. The random movement of the pendulum, which has been observed within the solar eclipse, may be due to turbulence of the gravity field. The volume ratio between space and matter is huge; the universe is like a sparse particle suspension. However, the gravity ocean is not exactly the same as the old “ether” because gravity is pure energy but ether was assumed to be made of material. The term “gravity ether” is maybe more illustrative.

The observed expansion of the universe has been decoded to support the Big Bang assumption, but who knows when expansion started and when it will end? The assumption of expansion is based mainly on red shift of the light, however, some other explanations than expansion may cause this experimental observation. The Microsoft share price may increase this year but this does not prove that it will also increase next year. Too often we assume that natural phenomena are linear, because many reactions tend to turn nonlinear, discontinuous and even change their direction when the range will be encreased enough.

On the other hand, the complicated mathematical model of the universe is not valid evidence of the Big Bang if some fictive parameters are needed to agree with experimental observations. Actually anything could be fitted using complicated models with tens of parameters and variables. These kinds of mathematical models tend to give correct answers just because these answers are given to the model in the parameter fitting stage. Of course these complicated models may be useful to silence the skeptics, but they are not valid evidence if they do not agree with experimental observations without fictive parameters.

Holy Assumptions

We still know less than 1% of the physical and chemical truth, so it is not wise to anchor our old assumptions if they do not agree with experimental observations. The amount of our scientific knowledge and data is increasing at exponential rate. Today we know at least 100 times more than some 100 years ago and, in future, after 100 years we probably know at least 100 times more than now. However, the amount of the wisdom does not increase at the same rate if we cannot change our prejudice.

We should keep an open mind in order to go forward in our never-ending exploration. All inventions are based on new ideas and dreams, and they are the main driving force behind science, research and development. It is impossible to invent new ideas if we fear to test the old assumptions and make mistakes. An easy solution is to add new parameters to repair the old models but sometimes the reassessment of the old assumptions may give better results; at least we should have the courage to test some other assumptions than the traditional ones. We should also remember that mathematical models do not command the nature but nature commands the models.

Big Bang theory assumes that the origin and source of the gravity is the matter, however, this has not been experimentally verified, it is only an old traditional belief. So the possibility of the error is 50%, because the source of the gravity could also be the space and the destination may be the matter. In the air plane industry some 0.001% error possibility in the basic assumptions causes extensive risk analyses, however, in the cosmology 50% error possibility closes the ears, eyes and mouths.

The most sophisticated scientific models will fail to reach the correct results if some of the basic assumptions is not valid, regardless of the huge investments on the theory, mathematics and testing. For example, if the car driving control model is developed and valid in Florida then it may fail in Alaska if the model does not take into account one-millimeter ice layer on the road. The global climate models will fail, for example, if the effect of sea currents has not been properly specified. In the same way brilliant cosmological models will fail if the effect of the time and gravity has been misunderstood.

Reversible Reactions

We cannot make the clock run in reverse or turn an old tomato into a fresh one, because it is impossible to change the direction of physical and chemical reactions, which contain random factors. Usually the chemical and physical reactions have been regarded as reversible. However, this is not the whole truth, because, thermal motion vibrates quarks, protons, electrons, atoms and molecules. Therefore it is impossible to reverse chemical reactions exactly into the original state and location. For example, if we melt and freeze water several times then we can be absolutely sure that the order and location of the molecules in the crystalline ice and water fluid is every time different.

Especially if we take into account that in our world we have some 100 elements taking part with the millions of chemical and physical reactions, then we should understand that the reactions and processes are never completely reversible because of the random factor, which mix the locations. The random factor originating from the thermal motion of atoms is one main reason why all snowflakes, leafs, and trees are different. It is also one cause why the identical twins are not exactly identical.

Summary

We do not need to worry about the disturbance of cause and effect because the present time is and was the only existing time. Juice may quickly be changed into wine by changing the speed of the natural processes, but we can travel in time only in our minds, because time is a mathematical and mental illusion but gravity is the real physical thing. The time is not the fourth dimension of the universe but the gravity is, we live in space-gravity university.

However, time is flying because our world is changing all the time; change is the cause and time is the effect. Continuous change is a great thing because the human mind prefers insecurity to boredom. Time flies faster at the point that is moving slower, according to the Theory of Relativity. It is funny that time also flies faster in the human mind as the number of year’s increases and our physical speed decreases.

Antti Roine, January 15, 2005, May 14, 2007, March 21, 2008.

Some References

Aristotle may have been one of the first to assume that time is made from movement.

LeSage gravity (kinetic theory of gravity), published in 1784:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gravity

Professor Petr Beckmann proposed replacing the word "Aether" with "Gravity", but he did not believe that "Gravity fills space".
- Beckmann, P. 1987. Einstein Plus Two, Golem Press, Boulder, CO.

Bryan G. Wallace found that the speed of light might not be exactly constant. However, he did not mention that speed might depend on the gravitation field.
- Wallace, B.G. 1969. "Radar Testing of the Relative Velocity of Light in Space," Spectroscopic Letters, 2, 361.
- Wallace, B.G. 1983. Letter to the Editor, Physics Today, 36, 1.

The calculated Doppler shifts of Pioneer 10 and 11 radio signals do not agree with the experimentally observed Doppler shifts. Pioneer 10/11 speeds seem to decrease too much.
- Renshaw, C. 1999. "Explanation of the Anomalous Doppler Observations in Pioneer 10 and 11," Proc. IEEE Aerospace Conf., 2, 59-63.

Ronald R. Hatch has found disagreements between experimental observations and Einstein theories.
- Hatch, R.R. 1992. Escape from Einstein, Kneat Company, Wilmington, CA.

Häfele-Keating experiment does not measure time dilation; instead they measure the rate of the processes.
- Häfele, J.C. and Keating, R.E. 1972. "Around-the-world Atomic Clock: Measured Relativistic Time Gains," Science, 177, 168-170.

Gravity. Is it really a pulling force?
http://bioch.szote.u-szeged.hu/astrojan/gravity.htm

Some nice draft maps of the universe and the Milky Way:
- http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/
- http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/universe.html
- http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/galaxy.html

Marcus Chow: Catching the cosmic wind, Maurizio Consoli
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18624930.900

The Casimir effect: a force from nothing:
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/9/6
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/C/Ca/Casimir_effect.htm
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-casmir-effect.htm

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

Speed of light:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect
Aimo Sillanpää, Tähdet ja Avaruus, 1/2008, pages 22 - 23.
- The Magic Telescope results of Mk 501 galaxy

Extragalactic Radio Sources and the WMAP Cold spot:
Lawrence Rudnick
http://webusers.astro.umn.edu/~larry/void/
http://webusers.astro.umn.edu/~larry/coldspot.pdf

COBE Satellite results:
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/dmr_image.cfm
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/cosmology/2.html#CMBR

Speed of Earth and Milky Way (Phys. Rev. Series D, 2003):
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0210165

Tired Light and Gravitational Redshift:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

Great Attractor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor

____________________________________________________________
Published:
Astronomy & Space Magazine, August 2005
Amateur Astronomy Magazine, Issue 47
UAI Journal, Vol 12, No 2, October 2005
English:
Why does time fly?
http://urantia-uai.org/Journal/english/Journal.2-05.engLO.pdf

PS. I would be glad to get your feedback and comments how to improve this column.

SkyBoard

OK, first of all, that was a hella long post.

Antti

SkyBoard

Yes you right, the experimental observations are maybe missing. However, everything is rotating in our universe from electrons and solar systems to galaxies. So it is not a stunning quess that also the whole universe is rotating around some specific point.

It is not an easy task to observe rotating of universe within the few years what we have been able to make observations due to the extremely long distances.

Antti

SkyBoard

Why do you assume a sameness in form as well as substance? The relation that exists between star and planet, and star and galaxy, is not prevalent on the scales of the cosmos. On these scales, gravity and the other forces take on a wholly different lifestyle.

_________________
"Your God may be in the details, but mine's in the process." - Ian Malcolm

Antti

SkyBoard

Usually rotating movement of one object of the system passes the rotation also to the other objects of the same system if there is some interaction between the objects. So, in this mean I would not be surprised if the whole universe is rotating around one fixed point. Especially if the gravity fills the space then all the celestial objects are connected with each other’s using this vast gravity ocean.

Antti

ma1999

There must be a centerpoint in the universe or there is no expansion. If this point can (ever) be observed is another question.

This huge post has some interesting points though.
"Blaming" everything on gravity is questionabel but some vacumm force seems resonable.

Btw its not the earth draging the pencil nor the pencil falling to earth. Its a joint interest of them to join. Its just that one of them is so much larger...

Antti

ma1999

My point is that we may find the correct answers faster if we have courage to test and compare also some other assumptions than the traditional ones with the latest scientific observations.

Basically I feel difficult to understand the gravity force which would arise from each individual atom and would extend to the opposite side of the universe. The all-round gravity ocean feels much more logical for me.

Antti

Antti

Hello

According to the COBE satellite measurements we are moving to Leo constellation and Aquarius on the backside. It is quite a coincidence that the great void in Eridanus is in 90 degrees angle to these.

What you think, have we found the centre of the Universe?

Antti

PS: Sorry that I was not able to enclose the link to the image in my home page. Sad

royrporter

The Need for a Universal Time Constant to Measure Gravimetric time Distortions around Massive Objects and Calculate Actual Interstellar Distances.

Reference: wikipedia, gravational time dilation

Although I have no degrees in quantum mechanics, physics or related mathematics, I see a need to set a time standard in which to be able to mathematically calculate the velocity of objects near a massive object and distances between massive objects. Once this is set, be it time rate at sea level or time progression far away from the center of gravimetric time changes caused by our own solar system. Voyager 1 is a candidate, if possible, being the only manmade object to be almost free of any gravimetric influences from our solar system.
Once this can be done, then we can more accurately use the equations of speed and velocity to accurately determine an objects relative speed or velocity when it is affected by a massive object.
First and foremost, gravity may not be a force; it may be the RESULT of this change in rate of time flow. We will arbitrarily say an object moving 60 ft/ sec at maybe 600,000 miles from sea level on earth will be our 1 sec constant. Therefore, since time travels slower at sea level (see above link), it would be the same as adding, maybe .0001 second to a like object traveling parallel (negating air resistance etc.) at sea level. Therefore, let us begin with an object moving 60 ft / sec for our constant in space and the sea level object would be 60 ft / sec +.0001 (time constant plus adjustment) or 59.994 ft. in one second (constant) as time passes for our constant in space. Therefore, we see that the object at sea level travelled less distance or SLOWER USING AN ADJUSTED SECOND! (All numbers are not actual calculated values, only used for an example throughout this Essay)
This theory leaves other possibilities open such as:
• Gravity is a DIRECT result of time changes created by massive objects and not a force in itself.
• The Grand Unification Theory may work if Gravity is removed from it since it is not a force!
• Distances measured from Earth to other space objects are higher than if measured physically.
• Light itself may be a form of time packets.
• The expanding universe may be closer than we think.
• Acceleration, which mimics gravity, is just changing the distance variable in the equation instead of the time variation that could support that gravity is acceleration not a force.
• Possibility of Field Propulsion?
• Red Shift of Light from moving objects or gravitational influence?
• What really happens in a black hole?
• Explanation of the big bang theory!

First, let us use the analogy from earlier and add to it. Instead of an object in space moving parallel to an object on Earth, let’ use a 10 mile long tether moving 60 ft / Sec. PARALELL but perpendicular to an object a sea level with the end farthest from Earth being at the 600,000 miles we defined earlier as the one sec constant. Then the farthest end would be moving at 60ft / sec (time constant). The end of the tether closer to earth would no longer be in the “constant” area of reference but be closer to the Earth’s sea level object and therefore subject to a time adjustment of let’s say +.00001 to offset the difference. Now the closer end would travel at 60 ft / 1.00001 or 59.994 ft in one adjusted second, traveling slower than the far end. Would this effect cause what appears to be it going into orbit or arching toward Earth since the closer end slows down causing an arching effect. Does this sound like the behavior of smaller objects such as asteroids approaching near parallel to the Earth whose end farther away from the earth seems to travel a bit faster (or the near end travels slower which is more accurate) so it “arches” around the mass of the Earth..
You can use the same analogy if something is approaching directly toward the earth but you would need to take into account that even something directly approaching Earth at a 90 degree angle has to also be moving equally parallel to the Earth (Which of course is rotating, orbiting the sun and orbiting the milky way with the sun.) It may be MOVING zero ft / sec parallel to the Earth but not zero ft /sec to the moon, sun, solar system or Galaxy or other space objects or therefore it would not stay perpendicular to the Earth. Therefore, even though an object appears to be moving directly toward us, it is also experiencing the same forces of an object that moves only parallel. This “overlooked” movement has the same effect except the “arch” is not apparent to us and appears that the object is pulled toward the Earth but it is still following the arching effect as before relative to other objects in space. Therefore, this not so apparent arching also explains the effect of attraction or Gravity but with a different angular momentum.

Second, since we already have discussed that the closer an object is to Earth, the less distance it will travel in a “Constant” Second. Well, light would also be affected in this way. Therefore, light would actually take longer and longer (nanoseconds more?) to reach sea level if arriving from space even though RELATIVELY it appears to always move at the CONSTANT speed of light. Therefore if we measured the distance to the moon with a laser, would it appear to be farther away taking into account the time differential near the two massive objects? If we tried to run a tape measure from here to the moon, would we find that it showed the moon was physically closer than we measured with a laser pulse? Once again, we would need a “constant” time reference to create the equations to accurately measure space distances using adjustments based on the “time constant”.

Third, as we all know when light is absorbed by an atom, it excites it or makes it hotter etc. Hot is described as atoms “moving” faster which is known as higher temperature. Well, now seeing that the speed equation can be adjusted on the” time” side as well, are the molecules travelling farther in a second? That is to say would an atom that absorbed light go from “vibrating” 60 picometers /2 nanoseconds (arbitrary numbers) to 65picometers in 2 nanoseconds (more distant traveled in the same measured time relatively)? Could it in fact be 60 picometers in 1 nanosecond instead, as the light packet releases its stored time energy, making time itself speed up in a subatomic area? Could this also explain the experiments that show light as a particle and a wave depending on the measurement and circumstances? What if it were packets of time (now that is an idea hard to fathom). But all this is above my ability to test mathematically. I would welcome any comments from scientists and mathematicians that could do the equations and calculations.
Also, acceleration mimics gravity. We call it G-forces. Well, the acceleration equation uses a changing variable of distance travelled. Less distance travelled per time unit for deceleration and more distance travel per time unit for acceleration. Well, if instead we apply the changes of time as we approach a massive object and instead changing distance traveled, we use changing time flow. We keep the distance travelled at the same value but instead use a changing time flow. This would also give you an acceleration value called gravity!!!
As an object approaches the speed of light, time slows down and its mass increases. Well, does time slow down BECAUSE its mass increases? Or because time slows down, its mass appears to increase? Well, just another thought…. Who knows, I never went that fast!!
What if you take a super strong metallic donut shaped ring, rotate it to a percentage of light speed. Would time slow down inside the donut’s center? If that occurred, could you then place an object near it and the time distortion would cause “acceleration” toward the center. If you then use that acceleration to push the donut away from the object and repeat it again, would you have field propulsion or a flying saucer? (Don’t they always rotate at high speeds too? MMM that’s an interesting coincidence...)
Why does light “red shift” if it is emitted from an object moving away from the observer? Since no one has been able to invalidate C as the “ultimate” speed and speed of light in a vacuum, light must “Speed up to C” to “conserve” this constant. But there must be some kind of energy exchange for light to do this. It can’t just magically “speed up” by itself. What if light “takes” from “time” to do this? Then we would have a source of the “energy” that light needs to achieve light speed. Well, as we all already know, the wavelength of light increases or red shifts. But DOES THE WAVE LENGTH ACTUALLY CHANGE OR DOES THE RATE THAT TIME PASSES FOR THAT PACKET OF LIGHT DECREASE? Since Wavelength is a result of frequency and time interval, did light really reduce its frequency or “borrow” energy from that one second interval, making the second last longer? (This also leads to more questions like does mass drain energy from time causing time to slow down?) Instead of changing the Frequency, did it instead change the LOCAL time unit? 60 Hertz is 60 times a second, so what is 60 times in 1.001 second? This would only be local to the packet of light that needed to borrow from “time” so it could achieve light speed.
But is light wavelength shifted around massive objects? If light just bends and appears on the far side at the same wavelength, did it shift down in wavelength then back up to normal as it left the influence of the time distortion? In this way, it would maintain C throughout the area of influence? But from what observation? Here again we have the problem of a “Time Constant” to calculate this. Did the light take longer to “emerge” from the area of influence then if it were a straight line? We can call it a “curve in space” to explain if it takes longer but was there really a curve? Was the light affected differently by external time shifts than if it “borrowed” from time as in the previous paragraph?
Finally, as stated earlier, if light is affected by these time “zones” or changes in the rate that time flows, then imagine the effect that a massive object such as a galaxy would have on how time flows. Would this not mean that there would be an even greater difference between using light or using a physical tape measure? This would mean that Galaxies may be much closer than we calculated!! Therefore maybe the universe is not expanding as fast and as far as we think... But once again, I do not have the mathematical skills to show or prove that. I will leave that to mathematicians and physicists who may take this seriously and do the calculations... It may be a TIME for changing our understanding of Gravity. Pun intended...
Additional thought experiment on black holes and the Big Bang:
Now that much has been postulated about the already known distortion of time, what would then happen as a massive object becomes even more massive i.e. a black hole? To begin with, time, as we know it slows down near a massive object as demonstrated by the known theories listed in the above link. That part is not in dispute and has been tested. So now let’s take it to an extreme level as we find in a black hole. Time will of course slow time even greater as we get closer and closer to the center of a black hole. Now, as stated earlier, physical distances appear relatively greater than they really are as measured by a physical tape measure. This greater distance will manifest itself inside a black holes event horizon, not as physical distances, but as the slowing of travel of that physical distance, creating, sort of speak, a time warp that has been already theorized as creating the condition that it “takes forever to reach the center of a black hole”.
Well, yes, that has already been theorized but has it been explained as to why this happens? This does not mean that you would not be torn apart by the time/tidal/gravity forces, only that the closer a particle/wave/energy gets to the center, the longer it takes to go one step closer. This has an effect of a relative stretch in space, creating more and more “relative” space due to time slowing but does not actually create more “physical” space as would be measured by a tape measure. It is almost as if matter/energy is being buffered in the past (compared to normal time/space) due to the immense time differences between time in the surrounding normal space compared to the time dilated/slowed area past the event horizon. A buffer is created, not by adding physical space but by slowing time relative to normal space. Bunching up matter in slowing time zones, compressing more and more mass the closer to the center.
Well, so now we have the makings of a big bang that is in fact NOT A BANG AT ALL!
The immense build up of matter in the time zones will eventually start to affect nearby matter as well, clumping together on their never-ending journey toward the center of the black hole. Masses will form, creating their OWN pockets of individual time dilations/slowing of time as well as attracting more mass. The larger the black hole gets, the slower time passes, the larger the “relative” space for matter to accumulate grows and the more clumps will form. Over time enough matter may accumulate in numerous clumps to be equivalent of the mass in a whole galaxy! We have the start of a universe forming, waiting to be born!
As this black hole grows, by the slowing of time and build up of matter in the “relative” additional time/space more and more matter from more distant areas away from the black hole will be attracted towards it from far reaches of space causing a cosmic “big collapse”. Matter from light years away, will, over countless millennium; end up in the time-distorted area of the black hole. The time distortion expands further into “normal” space as mass accumulates also adding physical distance to the relative distance added by the time dilation. Slowly, all matter, even that not yet crossing the event horizon is caught in the time dilation of this behemoth. This in turn changes the whole time frame of the universe in which the behemoth exists. As this time distortion/dilation spreads outwards, all is encompassed and becomes now, a part of the influence of that black hole.
At some point, there no longer exists an area not slowed by the blackhole which then leaves a paradox that needs to be broken! If there is no longer a “normal” time zone in space anywhere, then there can also be no “slower”(dilated) relative time zone either. This is an over simplification put into black (normal time) and white (dilated time) instead of shades of grey in between. This creates an imbalance in the whole fabric of space-time. How does that imbalance balance itself out?
In a simplified model, the time dilated space builds pressure as it buffers matter into the slowing time-space compared to ever shrinking normal flowing time away from the area. This difference in time can only exist if both sides, normal and dilated time exist. As matter is pulled out of “normal” time, and as normal space ceases to exist, something that once was there as reference to determine what is “dilated” time, slowly ceases to exist. This begins to create a time flow paradox in which a time “vacuum” or lack of “normal time” exists. Without this, the effect of the time dilation that creates the “gravity” of the black hole cannot be measured, therefore the time dilation itself begins dissolve as “normal” time is no longer there as a “reference” in which to create the time dilation. Gravity itself begins to redefine itself compared to the lack of “normal” time. As this occurs, the “relative” space created by severe time dilation slowly becomes the “new” normal time rate.
The “not so BIG BANG” which is more of a transition, begins to become the only time frame left in the universe. Since there is no longer a “barrior” between normal and “dilated time”, what appears to be a “relative” expansion occurs filling in the void left behind by the now non-existant “normal space-time” The expansion is so thorough, that even the center of the black hole finds itself expanding due to the lack of a “comparative” normal space time to “balance” out the extreme from the normal. With ut the “positive” pressure of existing normal space-time, the “negative” pressure of the black hole is free to expand, unheaded by the now non-existant balancing and restrictive.“normal space-time”
Of course, this is all just a thought experiment. It may entirely science fiction and mathematically inaccurate but it is “thinking ouside the box” that, I hope, may someday lead to a more accurate and scientifically provable theory as to how blackholes operate and how our universe came to exist.

Finally, as stated earlier, if light is affected by these time “zones” or changes in the rate that time flows, then imagine the effect that a massive object such as a galaxy would have on how time flows. Would this not mean that there would be an even greater difference between using light or using a physical tape measure? This would mean that Galaxies may be much closer than we calculated!! Therefore, maybe the universe is not expanding as fast and as far as we think... But once again, I do not have the mathematical skills to show or prove that. I will leave that to mathematicians and physicists who may take this seriously and do the calculations... It may be a TIME for changing our understanding of Gravity. Pun intended...

Disclaimer:
The stated facts in this essay are common scientific teachings derived from Albert Einstein’s Theories as well as many other famous Physicists. The other ideas put forth here are from my own “thought experiments” and 25 years of fascination with this subject area. I was even “mildly teased” 14 years ago in Army Advanced Individual Training (AIT), Ft. Gordon, Georgia by some Instructors and Classmates about my theory that gravity is not a force. If anyone has published any of these ideas prior, it is unknown to me and no Plagiarism was intended.
Roy Randal Porter Jr. (royrporter at live dot com)
Distribution or publication of this essay is unlimited if kept in its entirety with the author’s name, address and email address.

Roy Randal Porter Jr.
PO BOX 1904
Kingston, New York 12402

dorado

My first reply to this exotic converversation. Time is a truly manufactured concept of thinking individuals. A reference of dicussion. Since Newton, time is our reference for everything else, yet The Relavistic Theory's maintained time was relative, not absolute, or even linear. So, Einstien did a great job of guaging his Theory of Relativity on a universe that was metered in a universe of the speed of light. Quantifiable. Verifiable. But he could not get past the speed of light in his equations.

Speed being an issue of time and distance. We think we know distance. 500 million light years, 2 billion light years....all calibrated in the Einstienian quanta of time.

Consider. There is no known particle or quanta that relatavisticlly exceeds the speed of light. Except we haven't found a way to detect neutrinos, or other exotic, umm particles. When is quantum science going to burst past the speed of light (C), and find a way to see the superC particle and superC wave world? We cant make equations about superC theorys until we can measure, or even detect the superC world?.

I beleive gravity must be a superC quantum.

I have considerations on this.

Something to consider.

sdhobbs

LOL "3. Why is the difference between experimental observations and a theoretical model normally referred to as an "error" but in cosmology, it is called "dark energy”? "

Never a truer word spoken in jest. In any other subject you accept your theory was wrong and rethink, not physics (or is that philosophy, nowadays it's hard to tell the difference at times. Almost any prat can get a grant prvided they can talk enough BS and enough overly complicated equations.)

Here's a note they fail to take into account. Which is greater
1)The probability that matter is anti-matter in a state of flux as can be waffled on for hours and a new branch of maths with actually no solid answers can be invented to prove.
2)Some a-hole with way too much free time and who likes to make up
crap, watches way too much star-trek about phase shifts and stuff and is pretty good at selling almost any BS with some made up equation is looking for a grant.

Me thinks it be option 2 that is the higher probability.

On the note on the 1971 atomic clocks experiments, did they take into account the background radiation, variations of it according to relative position of sun and time of day and the fact it won't be constant if the plane passes into the earth's shadow and is protected from more inter-stellar radiation than in broad daylight?

Also most time crap is bollocks. E=MCC is based on some theroretical conclusion that light from two sources reaches the same point at the same time and so is the maximum speed. Doesn't take into account even the most basic GCSE maths equations using train A leaves station A at 10:15 and train B leaves station B 15 minutes later type formula. IE. The light is a continuous stream and so some light left the source travels further but arrives at the same point as other light leaving later but travelling a shorter distance. Absolute piffle.

For that matter "as we accelerate towards the speed of light this must be the maximum speed because all energy is converted to matter and so it becomes harder and harder to accelerate", erm well should E=MC or a starter and also if light is then a discrete photon particle, wouldn't they have infinite mass and so be in effect "black holes"... I don't think the fact we wouldn't have a shadow would be our main concern!

Also if time is relative and slows down as we travel, why do we bother putting clocks in cars!

Time is an arbitary measurement of the progression of our lives and is no real damn mystery, also it is unaltered and does not bend, distort or tear! 'bout time the grant system woke up to these spongers!

sdhobbs

Afterthought: If the speed of light was in any way related to the light source's energy content and the speed of light is constant it'd be an all or nothing world... was Einstein color blind too! All you got to do is look at a rainbow caused by different energy lights being curved differently and you'll realise they can't be right by common sense. Wink

Ariel

Actualy they have found an area in space that is huge and complety empty of anything, no astroids, no galaxys not even dust. But it's not in the center. But think, in an explosion does the fire and energy spread out evenly in a perfect dome? no it dosen't. the same would be true of the big bang. The area is so huge that if you stood (floted) in the middle, you'd see only the light of largest and closest galazy as the size of the tip of a hair.

Ariel

And My thought was that the galaxys are spreading apart from the center, breaking farther and farther away like the wasves of an explosion. I don't see any reason that blak holes would be in the center. There where no stars there but as you pointed out we know less than 1% of the universe and it best not to assume anything ethier way.

sdhobbs

I think we must be a pretty arrogant race that we can assume to know much about the universe in general.

Can anyone answer the following question (and I mean anyone on Earth!).

There is a peice of cotton 2 inches long protruding from a peice of paper via a small pin-hole, how long is the cotton on the other side of the paper that you cannot see.

That is about the same as trying to make any assumption about the universe unfortunately, we do not even know how much of it we can actually see, we in fact don't even have a rough estimate of the percentage of the total universe that we can see.

In respect to your point, in a vaccum an explosion would be far more uniform but could be off center if the explosive force was greater from one side of it than the other.

I haven't actually heard of this space or gap, but will look into it. I often believe that the black hole theory that it affects light is slightly suss in that if u extend the red shift to a great enough speed in any direction all visible light will extend into the invisible end of the spectrum, so they may actually be nothing to do with light having mass as it has so often been used as proof of.

There's a lot to be suspicious of when you start into the whole area involving the property of light and light speed. Good point though. Surprised

Why Does Time Fly?

Forum Options

Register