The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Time as a method of physical propulsion  (Read 7337 times)

Offline BolianAdmiral

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Time as a method of physical propulsion
« on: 12/12/2007 21:01:27 »
Hi, all...

I just joined this forum, and did not wish to necropost any old threads there may be dealing with time and black holes and what have you, so I chose to start this new topic, on something I have been thinking about for a long time...

Using time as a method of FTL propulsion.

This will take some time, for lack of a better term, so feel free to go make yourself a pot of coffee. Then, just sit back, relax, and consider the postulation of this "paper".

- - - - -

Time. It has always been. It shall always be.

Our universe has not always been, and will not always be.

This theory uses the Big Bang theory as a foundation of support. That being said... imagine, if you will, a very large and clear bubble. Suddenly, at the very center of that bubble, there is a sudden and bright spark, and then, a massive outward explosion of blackness... the matter that is our own universe. The black matter expands in all directions, like a massive 3D pond ripple. Our universe is now expanding, and billions of years are passing, right before our eyes. we are witnessing the act of raw creation.

As noted above, the universe is expanding away from the center point of all creation, which for this paper, I shall dub the "Great Generator", for it is from this generation point, that all matter has come to be. What is happening as the galaxies are forming, and colliding, and moving away? Yes... that's correct... time is passing. It takes an X amount of years for one galaxy to move from the Great Generator, to a given location.

Now... time, as we all know, is not physical, and therefore, is not bound by any newtonian laws. Additionally, current understanding of modern science explicitly governs that NOTHING can surpass the speed of light. Nothing physical, that is.

So... what must we do then, to solve our problem? That's right... look to the unphysical to solve a physical problem. Remember the mental visual of the galaxies expanding outward? Let's return to that for a moment. Let us say, for argument's sake, that our galaxy, the Milky Way, is the middle galaxy of a group of three, and that those three galaxies are expanding outward from the Great Generator. Okay. It stands to reason that the galaxy AHEAD of us was the first to emerge and move outward from the Great Generator. Thus, or galaxy emerged after it, and the galaxy behind us even later. Okay. Now, let us say that we wish to travel to the galaxy ahead of us.

Well, we cannot, because we cannot travel fatser than light... right? WRONG! WE cannot travel faster than light... but TIME can! And by using time, we can as well. How do we do this? By using math and spatial coordinates to calculate a temporal position for our target galaxy. we are not going to go to the target galaxy... we are going to force the target galaxy to come to us!

What we must do, is calculate the speed at which the galaxy ahead of us is moving, and then use that to determine how long ago that galaxy was occupying the same space in the universe as our own. If we know that, and can figure out a way to realize time travel, we can effectively revert the timeline to the point where WE are now standing inside the galaxy that was ahead of us. Think of it this way...

The universe as a whole is the floor. The galaxies are a long rug on the floor. Our own galaxy is the last end of the rug, and the target galaxy is the front end of the rug. WE are a chair atop that rug, at the end point. The effect of reversing time in this manner basically is akin to pulling that rug very fast, so that the front of the rug is now at the position of the endpoint... WE have not moved one mircon... the universe moved to us! We have "rewound" the universe, to accommodate our will to travel to the galaxy in front of us!

The same effect can be used to travel to the galaxy behind us, only in reverse... we simply "fast-forward" the universe, so that the galaxy behind us has now moved ahead to occupy the same space in the universe as our own did.

Granted, for the moment, this "reversion theory" only works in a straight-line orientation, but I believe it has promise. Granted also, that this speculation assumes that time travel can be possible. But so far, Earth's scientists are trying to get FTL by surpassing newtonian laws, and there is simply no way to do this, in the physical realm... unless you use time as a propelling force in this amnner, because time is not bound by the laws of physics, yet at the same time, has a place in the physical universe, because as time passes, galaxies expand. Thus, I would like to suggest that the scientific minds of Earth begin work on trying to develop time travel, instead of raw FTL, because with the advent of time travel, will come FTL ability.

Anyway, this is just something I thought up when i was bored... I'd like to hear your thoughts, questions, and feedback.

-BolianAdmiral


 

another_someone

  • Guest
Time as a method of physical propulsion
« Reply #1 on: 12/12/2007 22:50:15 »
Yes... that's correct... time is passing.

There is a lot that seems meaningless in the above, but I think this one statement, although in isolation, epitomises what I see as wrong in all that you are saying.

As a colloquialism, it is fine, and people understand what you mean by it; but as a statement with an intended scientific meaning, it is meaningless.

To say something is passing is to imply a reference to time (i.e. at time t0 object A is before object B, but at time t1 object A is beyond object B, one can then say object A has passed object B over a period of time).  When you regard time as the thing that is passing, what is your point of reference in which you judge time has passed?  You cannot meaningfully say time passes in time because that is a self referential statement, so in relation to what does time pass?

Well, we cannot, because we cannot travel fatser than light... right? WRONG! WE cannot travel faster than light... but TIME can!

Wrong - time does not move at all.

Movement is what happens in relation to time (when something moves, we are in fact saying that at a future time it occupies a different space to which it occupies in the present time).  How can time occupy a different location at different times - that just does not make sense.
« Last Edit: 12/12/2007 23:00:51 by another_someone »
 

Offline BolianAdmiral

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Time as a method of physical propulsion
« Reply #2 on: 13/12/2007 00:34:53 »
Time does move, but not in the physical sense... for instance, time moves in the regard that there is always a tomorrow... we live one day, go to sleep, and the next day emerges... that is the flow of time... the progression. In that regard, time is always moving forward. But you're right... time cannot physically move.

In regards to the first point... I'm merely stating a fact... if you line up three toy boats on a pond, one behind the other, and so on, and push each forward from a starting line, again, one after the other, each of those toy boats takes a certain amount of time to travel from point a to their eventual point in space where you want to begin your calculations. That being said...

If all the toy boats travel forward in a line, then there will come a point when the MIDDLE toy boat will occupy the same point in space on the pond that the FIRST toy boat did. That period of time... the interval, is what would have to be reversed, so that the first toy boat can again return to the position that the middle one now occupies.
« Last Edit: 13/12/2007 00:39:07 by BolianAdmiral »
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Time as a method of physical propulsion
« Reply #3 on: 13/12/2007 02:16:35 »
Time does move, but not in the physical sense... for instance, time moves in the regard that there is always a tomorrow...

It is true that there is always a tomorrow, but that exists irrespective of the movement of time - if time were to move, then tomorrow may or may not be there, depending on whether it had moved from there.

It is like saying there is always a spot in space that is 100 metres away from the spot you are standing in.  That is true without anything moving - there will be a spot, totally stationary, that exists 100 metres away from the spot you are standing in at that moment in time.  So too, we can say there will always be a time that is 24 hours away from the present, and that is true without any movement in time whatsoever.

It is ofcourse true, that you can yourself walk through space, and as you walk through space, so the spot in space that was 100 metres away from you becomes closer (or further away - depending on the direction you walk), and a different spot in space is now what is 100 metres away from you.  In that context, you have moved through space, but space has stood still (if you walk from London to Manchester, if London and Manchester remain in the same place, then all that has happened is that you have moved from one place to the other, but the places are as they always were and always will be).

Similarly, you can move through time, so you may stand at a point that is New Years Eve 2007, and you may move through time so that you are later at New Years Eve 2008; but that is not to say that New Years Eve 2007 is at any different time than it always was, it is only that you have yourself changed position in time.  In fact, even that is somewhat of a simplification, because it is not really true that it is the same you that exists on New Years Eve 2007 and New Years Eve 2008, because in that time, you have aged, and have accumulated new memories, and in all sorts of other ways, it is in fact a different you that exists in New Years Eve 2008 than exists in New Years Eve 2007.  Nor can it be said that because a version of you exists on New Years Eve 2008 that you have ceased to exist on New Years Eve 2007 (if someone were able to travel back in time from 2008 to 2007, they would still see the you that existed in 2007, so you have not disappeared from 2007, but when 2008 came along a different you occupied 2008 than was the you that occupied 2007).

 

Offline Mr Andrew

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 206
  • God was primitive man's attempt at Physics.
    • View Profile
Time as a method of physical propulsion
« Reply #4 on: 13/12/2007 02:21:33 »
What you have suggested is TIME TRAVEL!  Not a new idea.  If you can figure out how to travel in time then you'll have international fame...until then it is just as practical as walking through a wall, and just as old of a concept.
 

Offline BolianAdmiral

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Time as a method of physical propulsion
« Reply #5 on: 13/12/2007 19:10:18 »
^

Mr Andrew,

What I am suggesting is not time travel itself... what I am trying to present here, is using time travel as an alternative method of finding a way to have FTL, without further examining ways to do it using raw physical speed, because anything physical is bound by the laws of physics, which state explicitly, that NOTHING can surpass the speed of light.

However, if we look at the very nature of the universe, and know that through time, the galaxies have been moving away from a central point, we can use THAT to backtrack, and therefore, use TIME to get FTL velocities, as it were, because time is the one universal force that is not bound by physical law.

That's why I suggest we devote our time to finding ways to accomplish time travel, because once we do that, we can conceivably attain some degree of FTL travel, within a certain line of sight direction, back or behind. I have never seen anyone offer up time travel as a way to get FTL, and I was wondering why. I would argue that this theory has just about as much merit as any other quantum singularity/wormhole/warp drive theory.
 

Offline BolianAdmiral

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Time as a method of physical propulsion
« Reply #6 on: 13/12/2007 19:23:16 »
Time does move, but not in the physical sense... for instance, time moves in the regard that there is always a tomorrow...

It is true that there is always a tomorrow, but that exists irrespective of the movement of time - if time were to move, then tomorrow may or may not be there, depending on whether it had moved from there.

It is like saying there is always a spot in space that is 100 metres away from the spot you are standing in.  That is true without anything moving - there will be a spot, totally stationary, that exists 100 metres away from the spot you are standing in at that moment in time.  So too, we can say there will always be a time that is 24 hours away from the present, and that is true without any movement in time whatsoever.

It is ofcourse true, that you can yourself walk through space, and as you walk through space, so the spot in space that was 100 metres away from you becomes closer (or further away - depending on the direction you walk), and a different spot in space is now what is 100 metres away from you.  In that context, you have moved through space, but space has stood still (if you walk from London to Manchester, if London and Manchester remain in the same place, then all that has happened is that you have moved from one place to the other, but the places are as they always were and always will be).

Similarly, you can move through time, so you may stand at a point that is New Years Eve 2007, and you may move through time so that you are later at New Years Eve 2008; but that is not to say that New Years Eve 2007 is at any different time than it always was, it is only that you have yourself changed position in time.  In fact, even that is somewhat of a simplification, because it is not really true that it is the same you that exists on New Years Eve 2007 and New Years Eve 2008, because in that time, you have aged, and have accumulated new memories, and in all sorts of other ways, it is in fact a different you that exists in New Years Eve 2008 than exists in New Years Eve 2007.  Nor can it be said that because a version of you exists on New Years Eve 2008 that you have ceased to exist on New Years Eve 2007 (if someone were able to travel back in time from 2008 to 2007, they would still see the you that existed in 2007, so you have not disappeared from 2007, but when 2008 came along a different you occupied 2008 than was the you that occupied 2007).



Okay... I agree with that... so perhaps I should rephrase my statement... the flow of events moves on, time as an entity may not physically move, but it does move in the sense that as the flow of events go on, time records those events, and our perception of time keeps moving forward.

Think of it this way... you cannot stop time... if you do, all you would really be doing, is stopping the flow of events... BUT... while that is happening, time would still be going on... it would merely be an interval of time where nothing happens, but it would be an interval of time nonetheless.

In your last paragraph, you basically got it right... nothing can ever be undone, in a temporal sense... even if you destroy a building, in a sense, that building is eternal, for it still will forever exist in the past... time's memory of it will always be... even if you go back and alter history, the fact remains that at one point, in the universe, that building was there, and existed... NOTHING can undo that.
 

Post by Soul Surfer click to view.

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Time as a method of physical propulsion
« Reply #7 on: 13/12/2007 22:51:16 »
Shrunk
What a load of total unscientific rubbish  Bolian Admiral please go back and learn a bit of science.  All your initial premisis are wrong let alone any deductions that you have made.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Time as a method of physical propulsion
« Reply #8 on: 13/12/2007 23:02:42 »
However, if we look at the very nature of the universe, and know that through time, the galaxies have been moving away from a central point, we can use THAT to backtrack, and therefore, use TIME to get FTL velocities, as it were, because time is the one universal force that is not bound by physical law.

The problem again is poor nomenclature, and getting the nomenclature right is often they key to understanding whether an idea makes sense, or if it does not make sense, why it does not make sense.

Time is not a force, time is a dimension - it is a way of measuring things, but it is not an instrument of change, only a way of measuring change.  Time is like space (by that, I mean the measure of space, not space as in the vacuum between planets and stars),  We use clocks to measure time as we using measuring rods or rulers to measure space - but these things are measures and are not forces.   We cannot do anything to time that we cannot do to space - but we do things to physical objects that will cause their relationship to time and space to change (but even then, we cannot cause them to actually move through time and space, but rather cause them to occupy particular points in space and time, since the concept of movement is just another way of saying that the object exists along a line or curve through time and space).


That's why I suggest we devote our time to finding ways to accomplish time travel, because once we do that, we can conceivably attain some degree of FTL travel, within a certain line of sight direction, back or behind. I have never seen anyone offer up time travel as a way to get FTL, and I was wondering why. I would argue that this theory has just about as much merit as any other quantum singularity/wormhole/warp drive theory.

What do you mean by 'time travel'?

I know it may sound like a trite question, because we have all seen the movies where people disappear from one moment in time, and reappear at another moment in time; but I would suggest that those movies show more than mere time travel, and actually show jumps in time and space - discontinuity in time and space (i.e. at one moment you are in 2007, the next moment, without occupying any intermediate moments in time and space, you are in 1953).

Are you talking about time jumps, or simply time travel?  If the latter, then how would you describe time travel?

The other problem is, as has been oft looked at, if you can travel back in time, back to yesterday, then how do you deal with their being two of you yesterday (and if at this moment in time, you have moved to yesterday, then have you lost your tomorrow?).  If you start moving back in time, do you not simply change a forward line that you occupy through time into a loop that ceases at some point to exist in any future time, but begins to occupy two different locations in past time.

There is an even more fundamental philosophical problem to being able to draw the line of existence of an entity into a loop that passes back in time, and this is the problem of causality (this may actually indicate that such loops in time could exist at the quantum level, and hence why quantum physics has certain problems with unambiguous causality, but does not exist in the macroscopic world, where be believe causality to be inviolate).

One of the axioms of classical physics, and the primary goal of scientists in whatever field, is to be able to unambiguously, and precisely, predict future events by the sole means of knowing the laws by which nature works, and by knowing past events, and extrapolating from the past events, with the aid of one's knowledge of the laws of nature, to predict future outcomes.  This implicitly assumes that the future is totally determined by the past, and that the converse is never true (for one can know the past, but one can only ever predict the future, and never know it by observation before it has happened).  Once one allows that things can move backward in time as well as forward (ultimately, by things, the key property of these things that matters to us is information, but information has a very broad meaning in this context); then it follows that past events must be as dependent upon future events as future events are dependent upon past events, and so we cease to be able to unambiguously predict the future simply by knowing the past.

As I said above, it is not inconsistent to say that at a quantum level matter can travel backwards in time, because at the quantum level causality is not unambiguous; but at the macroscopic world, we still believe causality to be inviolate, and to have causality break down at the macroscopic level would seriously undermine our image of the world around us.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Time as a method of physical propulsion
« Reply #9 on: 14/12/2007 08:38:33 »
There are two totally fundamental errors in this idea firstly the concepts of time adequately explained by others and secondly the universe does not have a centre as all expansion is relative other galaxies.

Finally the concepts of scale are totally wrong  the generallised universe expansion does not become significant with respect to the random and group velocities of the galaxies (which are many hundereds of miles a second) until distances exceed one hundred million light years.
 

Offline BolianAdmiral

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Time as a method of physical propulsion
« Reply #10 on: 27/12/2007 06:21:44 »
There are two totally fundamental errors in this idea firstly the concepts of time adequately explained by others and secondly the universe does not have a centre as all expansion is relative other galaxies.

Finally the concepts of scale are totally wrong  the generallised universe expansion does not become significant with respect to the random and group velocities of the galaxies (which are many hundereds of miles a second) until distances exceed one hundred million light years.

WTF??? How can the universe POSSIBLY have no center? If we are going by the Big Bang theory, the universe HAS to have a center... logically, there IS and WAS a point from which all matter originally burst into being, to form the "bang" that created our universe... otherwise, you are going by something other than the Big Bang theory. That comment makes no logical sense whatsoever, as it absolutely ignores the most basic nature of the Big Bang event.

If there is no central point from which matter burst onto the scene, then how do you explain the "force" that causes the galaxies to move and be pushed along? For an initial movement to have taken place, there has to have been a catalyst for it. Explain to me how you can have the Big Bang theory, without a generation point for all the universal matter?
« Last Edit: 27/12/2007 06:25:06 by BolianAdmiral »
 

Offline that mad man

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 724
    • View Profile
    • My music
Time as a method of physical propulsion
« Reply #11 on: 27/12/2007 12:58:07 »
As far as I can make out, the "Big Bang" was infinite, occurred everywhere and as such there would be no centre.

The traces of Cosmic Microwave Radiation discovered in mid 1964 seem to bear that out so, have a read about it.
Its also a bad term as there was no "bang", I think it was Hubble that jokingly coined the phrase.

We also come across the old argument, "if time travel existed wouldn't we already know?"
 

lyner

  • Guest
Time as a method of physical propulsion
« Reply #12 on: 27/12/2007 15:13:12 »
Quote
WTF??? How can the universe POSSIBLY have no center?
If it has no edges then it need not have a centre.
A rubber band has no ends but it can get longer as you stretch it.
The surface of a balloon has no edges but it gets bigger as you blow it up.
Neither of these have a 'mid point'; you can choose it to be anywhere on the band or balloon surface.
 Just open your mind and add another dimension. Space needn't have any edges (no boundary) but can be expanding i.e. everything is getting further apart but not necessarily getting nearer to an edge nor getting further from a centre.
'Modern Physics' has a lot of new concepts which can't be explained using the old, classical, ideas. Get your head around them one at a time; this may not be totally painless. . . .
 

Offline BolianAdmiral

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Time as a method of physical propulsion
« Reply #13 on: 28/12/2007 19:27:18 »
Well...

Okay... using a balloon or rubber band analogy does not work, because while both CAN be stretched, there comes a point where both will break, so both those objects are finite.

Additionally... EVEN IF the Big Bang occurred "all around us at once", there STILL must be a point from which the universal matter was generated... there is NO getting around that fact. Otherwise, what we are talking about is not a new universe being created, but rather, an offshoot, or extention of an existing universe.

If we subscribe to the Big Bang theory, then yes, the universe DOES have an end... we just are unable to see that far out to that point yet. But if the universe was formed from a central point of emergence, then two possibilities emerge...

ONE, the universe is a self-contained "bubble" realm, which is rapidly expanding in the midst of some kind of larger structure... an omniverse. If this is the case, and we are in a self-contained bubble realm, then our universe DOES have definite borders, and we cannot see beyond that.

TWO, the matter of the universe exploded onto the scene, and washed over, or "overlapped" some form of space or "area" that was here before... in this situation, our universe is like color dye injected into a pool of water, that is rapidly expanding outward, to cover the water that was there previously. If this is the case, then there logically should be some point in space, where the matter of our expanding universe ends, and what was here before is still revealed.

In BOTH cases, there is an injection point for our universal matter to enter the realm. regardless of our universe's shape, the fact remains that there was a point or points, where things began to emerge.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Time as a method of physical propulsion
« Reply #14 on: 28/12/2007 19:41:27 »
Quote
there STILL must be a point from which the universal matter was generated
If the whole of space, as well as matter were in your 'point', then there would not have been any space for the even to be 'in'. All the content would be taking up the whole of space - just as it is now; it would just be a very small space. 'Outside' or 'where the universe is in space' are not meaningful concepts  any more than where the beginning of a rubber band is.
The idea of the rubber band or balloon busting is irrelevant - it was a model / metaphor. They could both be of unlimited extent for the purpose of the argument. Or, you could take two instants during which the rubber models are not breaking and what I say would apply.
The big bang does not need a 'point of origin'.
Your view only applies if you have to keep a classical view of what 'space' actually means.
« Last Edit: 28/12/2007 19:44:07 by sophiecentaur »
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Time as a method of physical propulsion
« Reply #15 on: 28/12/2007 19:53:16 »
Well...

Okay... using a balloon or rubber band analogy does not work, because while both CAN be stretched, there comes a point where both will break, so both those objects are finite.

Can you say, with certainty, that the universe does not have a breaking point?

In any case, the analogy was only to show that things can stretch even without having a centre, it was not to demonstrate that all such systems are inherently alike in all respects, only that such systems are possible.


Additionally... EVEN IF the Big Bang occurred "all around us at once", there STILL must be a point from which the universal matter was generated... there is NO getting around that fact. Otherwise, what we are talking about is not a new universe being created, but rather, an offshoot, or extention of an existing universe.

The assumption you are making is that space and matter are two distinct things, and that space existed before matter existed.  I think the idea of the Big Bang is that matter is merely an attribute of space, and space did not exist without matter in it, but both were created together (a little like the waves on an ocean - the waves and ocean are created together, and neither can exist without the other - and matter is merely the waves in space).

If we subscribe to the Big Bang theory, then yes, the universe DOES have an end... we just are unable to see that far out to that point yet.

Since the outer reaches of the universe are actually (if my understanding is correct) expanding faster than the speed of light - it is not that we are unable to see beyond the edge of the universe yet, but that we shall never be able to see beyond the end of the universe.

Whether that which we cannot see, nor can we ever in any way interact with, can possibly be regarded as existing, is another question.  I would think that to regard that which is unseeable, and unprovable, and nonetheless being a reality to sound more like religious faith than science; since science tends to limit itself to that which can be seen, or directly inferred from that which is seen.

 

Offline BenVitale

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Time as a method of physical propulsion
« Reply #16 on: 30/12/2007 17:47:34 »
Is Time slowing down ?

Pls. check the links newbielink:http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/scientists-time.html [nonactive]

and newbielink:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=senovilla+basque [nonactive]




 

Offline BolianAdmiral

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Time as a method of physical propulsion
« Reply #17 on: 02/01/2008 18:31:38 »
Well...

Okay... using a balloon or rubber band analogy does not work, because while both CAN be stretched, there comes a point where both will break, so both those objects are finite.

Can you say, with certainty, that the universe does not have a breaking point?

In any case, the analogy was only to show that things can stretch even without having a centre, it was not to demonstrate that all such systems are inherently alike in all respects, only that such systems are possible.


Additionally... EVEN IF the Big Bang occurred "all around us at once", there STILL must be a point from which the universal matter was generated... there is NO getting around that fact. Otherwise, what we are talking about is not a new universe being created, but rather, an offshoot, or extention of an existing universe.

The assumption you are making is that space and matter are two distinct things, and that space existed before matter existed.  I think the idea of the Big Bang is that matter is merely an attribute of space, and space did not exist without matter in it, but both were created together (a little like the waves on an ocean - the waves and ocean are created together, and neither can exist without the other - and matter is merely the waves in space).

If we subscribe to the Big Bang theory, then yes, the universe DOES have an end... we just are unable to see that far out to that point yet.

Since the outer reaches of the universe are actually (if my understanding is correct) expanding faster than the speed of light - it is not that we are unable to see beyond the edge of the universe yet, but that we shall never be able to see beyond the end of the universe.

Whether that which we cannot see, nor can we ever in any way interact with, can possibly be regarded as existing, is another question.  I would think that to regard that which is unseeable, and unprovable, and nonetheless being a reality to sound more like religious faith than science; since science tends to limit itself to that which can be seen, or directly inferred from that which is seen.



In regards to the baloon and rubber band analogies... I am not saying for certain the universe does not have a breaking point... admittedly, there is no way I can know that. However...

IN ORDER for a balloon to be inflated, again... some "force" must produce the influx of air into the balloon in order to cause it to inflate, and we all know that when we blow up a balloon, we do so by breathing into it, from a fixed point... so again, my analogy works, in that there HAS to be a central point or at least a point, where things began... a point at which the expansion first began, and matter was generated from. A balloon will not inflate itself, nor will a rubber band stretch itself... both require outside forces to instigate that.

With regards to the second point... space CAN exist without matter in it... theoretically... how likely this is in the real world, I cannot say, but the presence of matter need not be a requirement for space to exist... it simply means that there is another area of space, that is devoid of matter... another kind of universe. Our universe happens to include matter, and therefore, we cannot fathom a universe without it?

Now the third point, because that one is rich...

IF the universe is expanding at FTL velocities... that would mean that EVERYTHING is expanding at FTL speeds... including physical matter, which according to the laws of physics, cannot go FTL. The very laws of physics kill that theory dead, right there. IF the Big Bang did happen, there IS an outermost part to the universe... it just happens that we are too far away to see it, and are unable to see it yet.

Look, I'm REALLY not trying to be combative here, but I am trying to understand why there is so much difficulty in understanding the link between time and physical space... I mean, it's so simple, really... for a car to travel 60 miles, at 60mph, it takes 60 minutes. That is a fact. I'm merely offering a theory that uses the same philosophy, on a galactic scale.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Time as a method of physical propulsion
« Reply #18 on: 02/01/2008 19:44:53 »
IN ORDER for a balloon to be inflated, again... some "force" must produce the influx of air into the balloon in order to cause it to inflate, and we all know that when we blow up a balloon, we do so by breathing into it, from a fixed point... so again, my analogy works, in that there HAS to be a central point or at least a point, where things began... a point at which the expansion first began, and matter was generated from. A balloon will not inflate itself, nor will a rubber band stretch itself... both require outside forces to instigate that.

I assure you that balloons can be 'blown up' without blowing air into it.

I think we are running the risk of taking what was a contextual analogy to absurd degrees (all analogies break down at some point, otherwise they cease to be merely an analogy and become the reality).

With regard to a balloon (so long as we are taking this analogy a step further), the balloon expands because of the difference of pressure on the inside from that on the outside - thus one can as easily reduce the pressure on the outside in order to get the balloon to inflate as one can increase the pressure on the inside (that is merely one of many ways I can think of inflating a balloon without blowing it up - just place it in a vacuum).

With regards to the second point... space CAN exist without matter in it... theoretically...

You say 'theoretically' - what theory do you have in mind?

But whether the two theoretically can exist separately is another deviation, since all I suggested was that they did not exist separately, and that the Big Bang created both together (this not being a question of whether one can theorise about a context in which one exists without the other, only that in the universe we inhabit, that is not the reality).

Now the third point, because that one is rich...

IF the universe is expanding at FTL velocities... that would mean that EVERYTHING is expanding at FTL speeds... including physical matter, which according to the laws of physics, cannot go FTL. The very laws of physics kill that theory dead, right there.


I am not going to try and explain this, because I don't claim to understand it well enough to answer it properly, but ...

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#FTL
Quote
Can objects move away from us faster than the speed of light?

Again, this is a question that depends on which of the many distance definitions one uses. However, if we assume that the distance of an object at time t is the distance from our position at time t to the object's position at time t measured by a set of observers moving with the expansion of the Universe, and all making their observations when they see the Universe as having age t, then the velocity (change in D per change in t) can definitely be larger than the speed of light. This is not a contradiction of special relativity because this distance is not the same as the spatial distance used in SR, and the age of the Universe is not the same as the time used in SR. In the special case of the empty Universe, where one can show the model in both special relativistic and cosmological coordinates, the velocity defined by change in cosmological distance per unit cosmic time is given by v = c ln(1+z), where z is the redshift, which clearly goes to infinity as the redshift goes to infinity, and is larger than c for z > 1.718. For the critical density Universe, this velocity is given by v = 2c[1-(1+z)-0.5] which is larger than c for z > 3 .
For the concordance model based on CMB data and the acceleration of the expansion measured using supernovae, a flat Universe with OmegaM = 0.27, the velocity is greater than c for z > 1.407.

Maybe a better explanation is at:

http://scienceline.org/2007/07/09/ask-romero-speedoflight/
Quote
This ultra-fast growth seems to contradict what we’ve just discussed, but it makes sense if you understand the distinction between expansion and motion. When astronomers say that the universe is expanding, they’re talking about the rather abstract concept of space-time. Basically, space-time is the three physical dimensions of our existence-length, breadth and depth-combined with the additional dimension of time; think of it as a wire grid that connects every part of the universe to every other part. When we say an object has motion, we’re referring to its change in position relative to the space-time grid. The speed of light is only a constraint for objects that exist within space-time, not for space-time itself.

To better visualize the theory, astronomers often illustrate the expanding universe as a loaf of raisin bread rising in the oven. The raisins are galaxies and the rising dough represents space-time. As the dough expands, the raisin galaxies find themselves farther apart from each other, even though they are not moving relative to the dough between them.

Now let’s imagine that there’s a beetle in the loaf and it starts crawling toward a faraway raisin (don’t worry- we’re not going to eat it anyway). The beetle represents anything within space, such as baseballs, spaceships or photons. When the beetle burrows through the bread, he is moving relative to the dough, and all the other raisins. The speed of light limits how fast the beetle can travel, but not how quickly the bread can rise. Just because the expansion of space can break the speed limit, it doesn’t mean that we can go faster than Einstein said we could.

So, while the speed of light remains an unbreakable barrier for those of us within the universe, it can’t limit the expansion of space-time itself. The universe keeps right on expanding, but the speed of light limits how much of it we can see, and how fast we can move. It may not be fair, but that’s physics.

Look, I'm REALLY not trying to be combative here, but I am trying to understand why there is so much difficulty in understanding the link between time and physical space... I mean, it's so simple, really... for a car to travel 60 miles, at 60mph, it takes 60 minutes. That is a fact. I'm merely offering a theory that uses the same philosophy, on a galactic scale.

There is no problem with galaxies moving at 60mph.  Nor is the issue a problem with the relationship between time and space.  The problem is, what is it that you are regarding as your fixed points of reference (when one judges a car to be travelling at 60mph, we are using time and space as fixed points of reference, and the motion of the car relates to these fixed points).  Once you cease regarding time as a fixed point, then what are you measuring against?  What does it mean to say that a car too 60 minutes to tavel a given distance, if 60 minutes ceases to be a fixed quantity?
 

Offline BolianAdmiral

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Time as a method of physical propulsion
« Reply #19 on: 10/01/2008 00:17:49 »
Okay... regarding the FTL expansion thing... the analogy with the beetle and the bread STILL makes no sense, because both the beetle and the bread and the rasin are objects within our universe, that are physical... therefore they cannot move at FTL speeds. Either something is going FTL or not... distance has nothing to do with it at all... speed is speed, simple as that. If by suggesting that by the beetle burrowing into the dough of the bread... again... the dough cannot cause the bread to expand at FTL speeds, nor can the bread expand faster than the universe around it. It makes no sense. If the beetle has somehow entered another kind of realm, that it's not our universe, so the whole point is mute, anyway.

In regards to space without matter, I kind of illustrated that theory in an above post... imagine that the universe before ours, is a glass of water... in that case, OUR universe would be a drop of color dye in that already-present water, that expands outward... there was "stuff" here before us, just not us.

In regards to using temporal points as fixed physical positions, again, you CAN do that... vecause if a car goes from point A to point B, it takes a certain amount of time to make that journey... therefore, time DOES have physical reference points, for in a certain point in the timeline, a given object will occupy a certain point in space.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Time as a method of physical propulsion
« Reply #19 on: 10/01/2008 00:17:49 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length