0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Yes... that's correct... time is passing.
Well, we cannot, because we cannot travel fatser than light... right? WRONG! WE cannot travel faster than light... but TIME can!
Time does move, but not in the physical sense... for instance, time moves in the regard that there is always a tomorrow...
Quote from: BolianAdmiral on 13/12/2007 00:34:53Time 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).
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.
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?
there STILL must be a point from which the universal matter was generated
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.
Quote from: BolianAdmiral on 28/12/2007 19:27:18Well...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.Quote from: BolianAdmiral on 28/12/2007 19:27:18Additionally... 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).Quote from: BolianAdmiral on 28/12/2007 19:27:18If 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 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...
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.
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.
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.