A new look at an old direction in time.

  • 34 Replies
  • 9070 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline petm1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 52
    • View Profile
A new look at an old direction in time.
« on: 11/11/2013 16:43:12 »
"Mass is the past" that is always relative in space because "space is the present" we all share via photons. Our memories of past events and our thoughts of the future are all in the mind of the observer.     

*

Offline woolyhead

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 39
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #1 on: 11/11/2013 18:07:07 »
"Mass is the past" and "Space is the present." How does this fit in with Einstein's relativity? Time isn't the same everywhere in spacetime. How does mass become the past? They are two different thing, aren't they?

*

Offline petm1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 52
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #2 on: 19/11/2013 21:33:45 »
Quote
How does mass become the past? They are two different thing, aren't they?

Past and future are the two direction of time that we see no matter which direction we look in space while thinking of ourselves as the present.  Think of all signals as being emitted in the present from some form of mass.  This make my past as being made up from the signals I have already received, memories, my present are those signals I am receiving now, sight, and my future are those signals I have yet to receive, imagination, all of these are relative to me.  Mass on the other hand is always relative in the present from the past and into the future.  My thinking is as an observer the one second frame of reference my consciousness provides to receive and then process information is anchored in the past by my body as I move into the future. 



Quote
Time isn't the same everywhere in space/time.

Using a photon as our ruler I would think it is, it is the object with mass that changes duration according to its position and motion.

Quote
"Mass is the past" and "Space is the present." How does this fit in with Einstein's relativity?

I would think it fits easily because the faster a massive object moves in any of the spacial directions the more space/time it occupies in the present the longer the duration between the ticks of its clock.  Our clocks count changes they do not measure the duration between these changes except when we compare them one to another.

*

Offline petm1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 52
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #3 on: 24/11/2013 02:55:50 »
What if the math were right and big bang was a white hole?  Outward motion, all arrows going out from a point, a focal point of motion with the smallest motion as the most energetic.  How big would this focal point have to be before it broke apart into individuals focal points, must have been repulsive energy at that time. 

Today we still feel this force at the rate of 9.8 meters per second per second of out ward acceleration we call gravity. Newton saw this force as an attractive force with the apple fell from the tree to the ground, also noting that all mass fell at an equal rate.  Still holds today.

Einstein told us not only can we think of gravity this way but we can also think of it as the earth dilating out to meet the apple not as a force but a outward motion.  Maybe the skydiver has a true look at our temporal motion, an affine space of dilating matter.

The present is the edge of the universe I see from the outside only, matter, held in place by individual but continuous motion from big bang.  It is the simultaneous nature of atoms themselves as proven by gps and used as the basic time of cosmology that makes me think that atoms are not vibrating but are dilating. The dilating momentum of energy is the mass we measure and the reason that mass resists a change to its position. 

The difference between emission and reception upon reception is the space we see with the cmbr the inside of this temporal puzzle we think of as the past.  Do you think that it is paradoxical to think of the largest common denominator of all sets started the smallest while the smallest common denominator of all sets started at the largest because "time" being both, accounts for the twist between this single motion.

We count time yet measure space using a mobile ruler called a photon. We plot these images as a kaleidoscope of present moments from the past within our minds.  But make no mistake the center connection we call mass is real in time toward the past.



 

*

Offline petm1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 52
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #4 on: 03/12/2013 22:25:02 »
The present, is it reception or emission?  Myself I think it is both in the duration of a single photon.  We like to think of it as a distance relative to a material ruler but if truth be known we only detect  the end of a photons duration never the beginning.   

*

Offline petm1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 52
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #5 on: 11/12/2013 18:12:59 »
Why do we call it the big bang theory and not Einstein's calendar? 

*

Offline petm1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 52
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #6 on: 14/12/2013 21:48:04 »
Mass is the past relative to the present moment we all share as space while accelerating into the future at nine point eight meters per second per second. 


*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #7 on: 14/12/2013 23:43:50 »
What if the math were right and big bang was a white hole?  Outward motion, all arrows going out from a point, a focal point of motion with the smallest motion as the most energetic.  How big would this focal point have to be before it broke apart into individuals focal points, must have been repulsive energy at that time. 

Today we still feel this force at the rate of 9.8 meters per second per second of out ward acceleration we call gravity. Newton saw this force as an attractive force with the apple fell from the tree to the ground, also noting that all mass fell at an equal rate.  Still holds today.

Einstein told us not only can we think of gravity this way but we can also think of it as the earth dilating out to meet the apple not as a force but a outward motion.  Maybe the skydiver has a true look at our temporal motion, an affine space of dilating matter.

The present is the edge of the universe I see from the outside only, matter, held in place by individual but continuous motion from big bang.  It is the simultaneous nature of atoms themselves as proven by gps and used as the basic time of cosmology that makes me think that atoms are not vibrating but are dilating. The dilating momentum of energy is the mass we measure and the reason that mass resists a change to its position. 

If I understand you correctly, are you proposing the expansion of space within the particles of matter? Whereby the collective "dilation" of matter results in the phenomenon we call gravity.

This theory has as it's major proponent; Mark McCutcheon who wrote the book titled:  Final theory

If I've interpreted your reasoning in error, please advise me of it. If you are proposing the same theory as McCutcheon, you might be advised to consider that his theory has been debunked long ago.

Like I said, if I'm misunderstanding your point here, please explain a little more precisely what you mean by; Dilating matter

Thanks.............................Ethos

« Last Edit: 14/12/2013 23:45:34 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline petm1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 52
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #8 on: 19/12/2013 04:29:55 »
Quote
If I understand you correctly, are you proposing the expansion of space within the particles of matter? Whereby the collective "dilation" of matter results in the phenomenon we call gravity.

If you think of an atom vibrating in space, a static variable of one, its duration is ever increasing.  I think the expansion of space includes a dilating time and yes it is the dilating momentum of matter we measure as gravity. 

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #9 on: 19/12/2013 13:03:20 »
Quote
If I understand you correctly, are you proposing the expansion of space within the particles of matter? Whereby the collective "dilation" of matter results in the phenomenon we call gravity.

If you think of an atom vibrating in space, a static variable of one, its duration is ever increasing.  I think the expansion of space includes a dilating time and yes it is the dilating momentum of matter we measure as gravity.
Please explain to us then, the tidal forces here on earth. GR defines these as being caused by the gravitational influences between the moon and earth. If the so-called dilating momentum of matter is the cause, describe to us how this mechanism works. I think you may have a difficult time doing this my friend.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline petm1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 52
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #10 on: 31/12/2013 05:01:25 »
You don't think that the accelerated frame we call earth should be included when describing tidal forces?   How about the accelerated fame we call the moon?  If you don't know how tidal forces on earth work then try Wikipedia it makes a nice read.

Myself I think the center connection between the masses is temporal in nature having more to do with that common point in time called big bang than the duration of a photon traveling between them in my present.  If you think of space as rigid and time as the variable, relative to the present moment, then it is easier to see that it is time that is warped in gr. 

   

 

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #11 on: 31/12/2013 17:44:37 »
You don't think that the accelerated frame we call earth should be included when describing tidal forces?   

 
I may have mislead you petm1, when I asked about tidal forces, I should have just said; How does one account for the ocean tides here on earth using your position as the cause of gravity? As I stated in my last post, a similar theory was presented by Mark McCutcheon several years ago and was summarily shot down because he couldn't explain ocean tides with his theory. Gravity is a result of space/time compression occurring around mass and not the result of an expanding or oscillating material volume.

In short; How does your theory account for the ocean tides?
« Last Edit: 31/12/2013 17:46:54 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline petm1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 52
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #12 on: 04/01/2014 21:38:08 »
Quote
Gravity is a result of space/time compression occurring around mass and not the result of an expanding or oscillating material volume.

When I think of the accelerated frame as a positive flow of time such as a dilating earth.  Then it is easy to see how we see the same thing as a negative motion in space, after all the two are opposites. As for the compression occurring around mass is it outward or inward?  You need both to describe tides.   

When thinking of the accelerated frames as world lines is there an increase in their volumes after all then they look like worms. I would think it is more a change in duration than volume with an increase showing itself as a slower tick rate.  More change in time and less in space or more change in space with less in time two ways to increase duration thereby slowing our clocks with a curving space/time.

 



 

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #13 on: 06/01/2014 21:34:38 »
Quote
Gravity is a result of space/time compression occurring around mass and not the result of an expanding or oscillating material volume.

When I think of the accelerated frame as a positive flow of time such as a dilating earth.  Then it is easy to see how we see the same thing as a negative motion in space, after all the two are opposites.
 
Just how do you explain a "dilating earth"? If one assumes that the earth is dilating, why don't we see the moon and sun drawing nearer? It's difficult to understand how you could come to that conclusion.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline petm1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 52
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #14 on: 11/01/2014 19:52:03 »
Quote
Just how do you explain a "dilating earth"? If one assumes that the earth is dilating, why don't we see the moon and sun drawing nearer? It's difficult to understand how you could come to that conclusion.

We measure the dilating earth as a accelerated frame, in my mind, a focal point anchored in the past by our mass.  You may think of a static distance between frames myself I think of it as a variable, time. Time as in a dilating present the deeper into the well you move slowing the tick rate of clocks is why I think of this as a warping in time that I do not see in space. 


*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #15 on: 12/01/2014 03:03:55 »

 Time as in a dilating present the deeper into the well you move slowing the tick rate of clocks is why I think of this as a warping in time that I do not see in space.
But surely, you must acknowledge that the moon is in the same frame as the earth, and if the earth is dilating wouldn't the moon be doing so as well? And BTW, when you speak of dilation, are you saying that the earth is expanding? Most of us know what time dilation refers to the perceived advance of events relative to observers frame of reference. When you speak of a dilating earth, are you suggesting that the earth is expanding or that somehow, it is advancing thru time at a different rate. And relative to what would that other frame be?

"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline petm1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 52
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #16 on: 15/01/2014 06:19:19 »
Quote
But surely, you must acknowledge that the moon is in the same frame as the earth, and if the earth is dilating wouldn't the moon be doing so as well?

I think that the Moon and the Earth are separate frames, each centered in its own time, over lapping in a relative space/time.  In my mind I see every single entity as a dilating time after all we use the difference between durations everyday to describe everything from the age of the earth to my own age. 

Quote
Most of us know what time dilation refers to the perceived advance of events relative to observers frame of reference.


Affine space fits more with my picture of time dilation.

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #17 on: 15/01/2014 16:12:12 »


I think that the Moon and the Earth are separate frames, each centered in its own time, over lapping in a relative space/time.  In my mind I see every single entity as a dilating time

Would that also include elementary particles? This is starting to sound like Mark McCutcheon's theory my friend and that theory has already been debunked. Maybe you could explain Affine space for us?
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline petm1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 52
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #18 on: 16/01/2014 03:26:39 »
Quote
Maybe you could explain Affine space for us?

Try looking at it like this.  Tonight I see a full moon, as a receiver or as an observer I see what amounts to a wave that left the moon sometime in the past.  If I think of a photon as a small part of this wave, a radius of a single dilating moment centered on the moon you have a dilating time.  We may see a photon and a gap before the next but to explain the gap you must keep this motion even with out the photon.  This affine space is what I see as the moon dilating in time.  Now when you think of the center of the moon as the longest duration with the longer second you get a slower tick rate of local clocks.  Dilation at the speed of light is now how we count time, you just have to think of it as a dilating sphere with the photon's duration a radius of a single part of time centered as mass.  But make no mistake every point in the visible universe dilates it is mass that spends more time in the present.

Quote
Mark McCutcheon's theory

Did he think mass was the past?

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #19 on: 17/01/2014 23:36:05 »
Mark McCutcheon's theory

Did he think mass was the past?
I haven't read his book petm1, so I am not privileged to that information. I have read excerpts from his theory however and find his interpretation lacking. His interpretation of gravity is reasoned thru what he contends as an expansion of space which includes also the very space within particles. He suggests that the combined expansion of these dimensions results in the inertial frame we  understand as gravity. He suggests that because everything is expanding, we the observer can't measure the expansion because we are expanding right along with everything else. His theory falls apart because it doesn't explain the tides we see on earth which are the effect of our moons gravity. I believe he tries to suggest that these tides are caused by electromagnetic or static electrical forces. His theory has not been well received by peer review and I suspect it will remain that way.

As far as defining mass as the past, if I may be so honest, I fail to see how that theory could be explained. The mass we see as the moon came to us a very small fraction of a light second ago. But that mass we now see is in the past, that mass is not the past. That mass resides in the past.

The mass/energy of the moon we experienced in our past is now the mass/energy we experience in our present. The past, like the present and the future only define a point in time, the past can't define physical objects like mass/energy which occupy all places in time.

If we were to concede that "mass is the past", it would be just as correct to say that; Mass is the present and it is also the future. I really don't see how saying that "mass is the past" says anything about reality.

« Last Edit: 18/01/2014 00:35:09 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline petm1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 52
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #20 on: 20/01/2014 20:26:28 »
My duration in the present, my age is increasing, to slow down my clock I can either move deeper into our gravity well, or move faster either one will increase my duration in my present thereby slowing my clock.  The present is where we change the past into the future but it is also the limit to our movements via mass.   Mass on the other hand is my anchor to the past always centered in time relative to a changing present that I can not see.  It is a dilating second, the present, that explains the increasing duration the closer you move massive entities together and I see this as local clocks trying to tick at the same rate you see this same thing as tides.   

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #21 on: 20/01/2014 22:45:28 »
My duration in the present, my age is increasing, to slow down my clock I can either move deeper into our gravity well, or move faster either one will increase my duration in my present thereby slowing my clock. 

Park yourself at the event horizon of a black hole and ask yourself who's time is advancing faster. For you and your clock, time seems to advance at it's normal rate. But what you observe is everything outside speeding up. For those outside, they see you frozen at the event horizon. You see time advancing faster and those outside see your time frozen. Who's time has really slowed down? Depends on who's frame of reference you choose to gage the advance by.

Quote from: petm1
Mass on the other hand is my anchor to the past always centered in time relative to a changing present that I can not see. 
People confuse the terms "Mass and Matter". Matter and mass/energy are very different things. Where matter is a local volume measured in radii, mass and energy are attributes associated with this presence measured in grams and ergs. While an electron is matter, it's mass and energy will increase with velocity. So the rest mass of an electron is very different than that same electron approaching velocities close to c.

My point here is; when you define a location or frame as being: "An anchor to the past," you should probably use the term "Matter" and not mass. But I still don't see the significance of your explanation. The Past, Present, and Future are only different points in the arrow of time. Why one or the other should have more or less to do with mass, or matter, is beyond reason in my opinion.
« Last Edit: 20/01/2014 22:47:44 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline petm1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 52
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #22 on: 22/01/2014 19:11:11 »
Quote
Park yourself at the event horizon of a black hole and ask yourself who's time is advancing faster. For you and your clock, time seems to advance at it's normal rate. But what you observe is everything outside speeding up. For those outside, they see you frozen at the event horizon. You see time advancing faster and those outside see your time frozen. Who's time has really slowed down? Depends on who's frame of reference you choose to gage the advance by.

My consciousness is always co moving with my clock and my second is always a second by my count.  With that said I do not see it as a difference in the speed of times advancement I see it as a difference between the durations we are spending in our separate presents.     

Quote
People confuse the terms "Mass and Matter". Matter and mass/energy are very different things.

Matter is relative by size using an accelerated frame as the base, we all agree that a ruler of matter marked to a meter is always the same length in the present moment, much like our second. Our second is a variable we can measure as changing because of the different tick rates of local clocks but I do not see it as time speeding up or slowing down I see it as mass warping the present moment.


Quote
when you define a location or frame as being: "An anchor to the past," you should probably use the term "Matter" and not mass.

Time is always relative in the present and what keeps us all relative is mass, the resistance to change.  Matter is what I see via photons but mass is what I feel and I don't think of light as an anchor.  I may not be able to think of myself as the center of the universe, in space, but I am just as much the center of time as you or any other massive object. 

     

*

Offline gcrisp

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 36
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #23 on: 22/01/2014 20:10:34 »
we all agree that mass can warp space and time, ie around a gravity well. I have this crazy theory that the universe behaves like a giant mass, and that the speed of light is proportional to the distance from the center of the universe (big bang/white hole), and the speed of time is probably inversely proportional to the distance from the center of the universe. This means we observe white light as being white light anywhere, but are we measuring distances correctly towards and away from the center?

What if the universe is behaving like a giant gravity well and we are halfway up the slope?
« Last Edit: 22/01/2014 21:19:26 by gcrisp »

*

Offline petm1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 52
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #24 on: 26/01/2014 02:08:14 »
Quote
the universe behaves like a giant mass, and that the speed of light is proportional to the distance from the center of the universe (big bang/white hole)

White hole as in the outward energy flow from big bang, all motion moving in one
direction, the beginning of entropy, not to mention space and time?

Quote
What if the universe is behaving like a giant gravity well and we are halfway up the slope?

Do you think that in the beginning time was infinite and space was not and that in the end it will be space that is infinite and time will not?  Is this the slope?



*

Offline gcrisp

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 36
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #25 on: 31/01/2014 06:06:34 »
Maybe that is what I mean.
Its just that when I look at some of the diagrams of a gravity well, I start to wonder whether we really have it all correctly fathomed out.
Lets face it, we could go 1000 times the distance of Pluto, and it would only be a couple of remote decimal places that may change in speed of light/time elapsed if my preposterous theory were even minutely correct.
Maybe when we look outwards or inwards towards where the big bang/white hole occurred, what we see is far from reality in our sense of time/space understanding.
We have of course, based all our measurements on what happens here, in our backyard, so we assume what we see complies.
Are we so arrogant that we believe our back yard is the b all and end all?
Just like the church less than 100 years ago?????? who persecuted anybody with alternate ideas.

Enough of the emotional argument!
I believe in mathematical representations of what we see. Far too often in my life I have seen evidence of theories that could be modified by changing a parameter and still make sense, but a different sense that opens new avenues of exploration.
None of what I have said would change a single recognizable thing in our lowly neighborhood of the universe. After all, we are just a spec of dust on the Pacific ocean.
g

*

Offline petm1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 52
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #26 on: 01/02/2014 19:24:44 »
The way I see it, I may be the smallest part of the observable universe in space, but I am always the largest part of my own time in the present.

*

Offline petm1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 52
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #27 on: 06/02/2014 18:25:06 »
Temporal motion is how I think of the motion I do not see; i. e. the photon I do not see its motion I see it as a static color, the outward acceleration of Earth, concrete cracking, grass growing.   Dilation is a singular motion outward The earth dilates, I am dilating, space is dilating, the sun is dilating, a clock counts this dilating motion.

One is a temporal entity, we do not separate time because time separates itself, dimensionless until we assign a number to it.  The largest common denominator and the lowest common denominator, time, of reality is size dependent.  The common beginning of mass, big bang, is relative in time to our present moment and looking back in time we always see it as smaller.  All you have to do is think of Planck as a relative static scale in the present while in time the common denominators are always dilating.

*

Offline petm1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 52
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #28 on: 19/02/2014 22:15:09 »
A time line of the earth can be graphed as a wormhole through time, yet we do not see it that way, because we only see signals from the outer shell.  Newton may have showed us that space can be thought of as rigid from a point with a single time for us all. Myself I would think that Einstein showed us space and time must be on equal footings, yet opposites, such that time is rigid from a point with a common space for us all. 

Today we use the dilating rate of a caesium-133 atom to split our common second, much finer that the rate we got using hydrogen, but between the two we can see that there is a difference in the dilation rate of matter.   

*

Offline petm1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 52
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #29 on: 27/02/2014 07:25:01 »
The duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the Cesium 133 atom.  One second, we count the photons emitted from a Cesium atom as it is changing states over some distance with a detector.  Take two synchronized clocks, if you move one clock deeper into a gravity well, it will tick slower, the photons will have a longer duration.  The photons still travel at the same speed with the same distance but it takes them longer to make the trip.  The longer durations account for the slower tick rate between the clocks when reunited.  With an expanding space accounting for the red shift in old photons and an dilating duration accounting for red shift from the young ones then it is easy to see that space and time are opposites till the end.  You can also think of space as a single entity in which case you can describe it as one dilating moment but to stay as an opposite you would have to think of time as expanding, gravity maybe?   

*

Offline petm1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 52
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #30 on: 13/03/2014 17:00:20 »
What if we believed our eyes, everything you see is smaller because that was the size when the photons were emitted, everything dilates in time we only see the photons sent from the outside edge of a dilating entity.  The present is set by my one second frame of reference as an observer and if you think of the past as being smaller then it makes sense that I can think of my present moment as the largest the same as you.  Every single thing gets bigger in time, size is relative, and we see it when ever we are moving our frame of reference.  The sign on the side of the road dilates as we get closer to the same moment but it does not contract as we leave we just see it receding in time while its dilating rate stays the same.  Space and time on equal footings account for everything, try thinking of time as accounting for all motion including the motion I do not see, like photons and the outward acceleration of gravity.  Think of the outward acceleration of the earth as a real motion, not just a force, masked by the pseudo-emission point within my eyes that I use as the leading edge of present moment.
« Last Edit: 14/03/2014 05:53:43 by petm1 »

*

Offline petm1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 52
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #31 on: 14/03/2014 21:24:11 »
The apple falls to Earth, the Earth dilates out to the apple.  Both describe the same motion, one is attractive the other is repulsive, we see one and measure the other.  The apple does not feel the force of gravity, we measure this force when the apple lands on the accelerated frame.  I for one believe my instruments the gravity wave is measured by the accelerometer.   
« Last Edit: 15/03/2014 05:17:31 by petm1 »

*

Offline petm1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 52
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #32 on: 19/03/2014 17:51:23 »
The tides can be accounted for using a warping of space time, not a force at all.  It is the different lengths of a second, slower tick rate, that we measure the deeper in a gravity well that is this warp in my mind.  I think that the negative, attractive, force of gravity in space equals the positive acceleration, outward, we measure as the lengthening second here on Earth.   

*

Offline petm1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 52
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #33 on: 17/04/2014 17:02:39 »
Mass is the past holding us relative in the present.

Space is the present moment we share as observers.

Gravity is our outward dilation into the future.

*

Offline petm1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 52
    • View Profile
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
« Reply #34 on: 23/05/2014 19:28:00 »

Time is just as real as space after all they are both the same thing just opposites, the mystical part of space/time is thinking time is not real. Time is the largest through smallest common denominator of our present moment when expressed within mathematics using space/time as a coordinate system from one point. One clock to rule them all.