# What was before the big bang?

• 294 Replies
• 47406 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1506
• Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #200 on: 20/09/2015 01:22:32 »
I do not understand your visualisation of time Bill.  Time is a phenomenon.  I would even go so far as to say time is a force.  It does something.  Without time there can be no motion.   We know that the rate of time is a variable.  We observe there to be a change in the rate of time due to changes in a gravity field.  This is indicative of the phenomenon of time being part and parcel of the structure of our universe.  Our measurement of time, and how we then perceive it is a completely separate issue.

Ok, well I've looked up definitions of the words infinite, infinitely and infinity...

These words describe something that is immeasurably large, immeasurably small, immeasurably long, etc.  I actually come to see no need for the use of these words in the context of this subject matter.

In the case of nothing, nothing is just something we must add everything into for everything to exist.  In the case of everything we can say that it possibly goes on forever and possibly gets bigger.  And that these particular parameters of everything are immeasurable within our "current" understanding.

The Big Bang theory states that everything emerged from a point.  The Big Bang is a mainstream physics theory. On the basis that emerging everything from this point in the time scale given by the Big Bang theory is 'troublesome' - we are deviating from mainstream physics only in that we are looking at a creation moment that occurs in the microscopic region and evolves from the microscopic into our universe today 'slowly'.

Now does anyone at-all want to talk about how time, space and a Casimir fluctuation 'might' arise from a zero geometry, zero content, point?  Because for me, this is the most pertinent part of the discussion!
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### Mordeth

• Jr. Member
• 44
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #201 on: 20/09/2015 02:45:43 »
Since we are dealing with distinctly non-mainstream ideas; the problem of infinite regression in relation to the Universe is not so difficult to overcome, without getting into theology.  The trouble is that the concept requires fully accepting that infinity is not a number, and eternity is not time.  It is not difficult to get scientific people to accept this, but if you try to go a step further and ask them to agree that there can be no change in infinity, and that there cannot be an infinite succession, and you hit a brick wall.

It is important to stress that I am not attempting to be dogmatic here, I am not even saying that this is what I believe, I am merely putting forward some of the ideas that have come into my head in the course of thinking about the possible origin of the Universe, and in particular about infinity.  I gladly accept that the ideas are there to be knocked down, and in fact welcome that as part of my own learning process.

I invite you to consider the possibility that the cosmos is infinite. (Whenever I use the word “infinite” I include “eternal” within the term).  I am, here, picking up the idea, that appears in some scientific circles, that the four dimensions of spacetime that we experience are only a shadow of a higher-dimensional reality that is beyond our reach.  I am suggesting that the cosmos has infinite dimensions, or perhaps just one infinite dimension, which we cannot experience.  Like zero, whatever you divide, or multiply infinity by, it remains unchanged.  However, unlike zero, infinity should remain unchanged if you try to add something to it, or subtract something from it, because, if it is truly infinite, whatever you “add” will already be part of it, and whatever you try to subtract will still remain part of it, otherwise, it would no longer be infinite.  Even when trying to explain this idea, we run into problems with terminology.  Strictly, I should not talk about “parts” of infinity; surely, it has no parts; that is of the essence of infinity.  Leaving aside the mathematical “infinities” that almost inevitably find their way into this kind of discussion; it feels as though no part of a true infinity should be thought of as being finite, because a true infinity cannot be sub-divided.  In eternity, time should receive the same treatment, it too is eternal; of course this is also a contradiction in terms; what I should really say is that time, as we understand it does not exist.  There is no passage of time, in the cosmos, nor do we, in our Universe, pass through time.  We live in an eternal, unchanging now, of which we can experience only a shadow.

Hi Bill,

Please incorporate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics into your "theory".  Are you saying all macroscopic behavior is reversible?  It is therefore time asymmetric?  Do you feel there can be a universal state of maximum entropy where complete equilibrium exists?  If the cosmos is eternal, why are we not in this state now?  Why did we evolve from a clearly low entropy state in the past?

#### dlorde

• Neilep Level Member
• 1449
• ex human-biologist & software developer
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #202 on: 20/09/2015 12:13:42 »
So...dlorde.  You are disputing the Big Bang theory, everything did not emerge from a point, please elaborate!
I'm not disputing the standard model of cosmology (i.e. the current consensus), that the universe expanded very rapidly from a very dense, very hot state, and that while the observable universe would have been sub-atomic - perhaps a few planck lengths - in scale prior to expansion (inflation), the scale of the whole universe at that time is unknown and might be infinite (it's certainly much bigger than the observable universe). It isn't known what the state of the universe was prior to that - GR predicts a singularity, which is pretty unpopular because the physics that gets us that far back fails there, and it doesn't account for the quantum effects that are expected to have predominated at that time. There seems to be some support for the idea that a 'bounce' would occur, rather than a singularity - that the BB was a sort of rebound.
« Last Edit: 20/09/2015 12:23:12 by dlorde »

#### dlorde

• Neilep Level Member
• 1449
• ex human-biologist & software developer
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #203 on: 20/09/2015 12:33:39 »
...Like zero, whatever you divide, or multiply infinity by, it remains unchanged.  However, unlike zero, infinity should remain unchanged if you try to add something to it, or subtract something from it, because, if it is truly infinite, whatever you “add” will already be part of it, and whatever you try to subtract will still remain part of it, otherwise, it would no longer be infinite.  Even when trying to explain this idea, we run into problems with terminology.  Strictly, I should not talk about “parts” of infinity; surely, it has no parts; that is of the essence of infinity.  Leaving aside the mathematical “infinities” that almost inevitably find their way into this kind of discussion; it feels as though no part of a true infinity should be thought of as being finite, because a true infinity cannot be sub-divided.
Mathematical infinities do differ from what you describe here; is this description of physical infinity your own construction, or do you have a source for it?

If you have a source, I'd love to see the reference. If not, do you have some rationale for the properties of your description of physical infinity, or is it just what 'feels right'?

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• 1880
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #204 on: 21/09/2015 15:19:57 »
Quote from: Jeffrey
What happens if the expression is infinity minus infinity or infinity divided by infinity?

If you give me a practical example of either of those; then perhaps we can work from there. You know what I'm like with maths.  []
There never was nothing.

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• 1880
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #205 on: 21/09/2015 16:06:29 »
Quote from: Timey
Now take the vacuum state with its quantum fluctuations and remove them.  What are we left with?  Empty space.  Then take away the geometry of space.  We have a point.

Sorry, Timey, I can’t see the point. []  Where did you find it?

Quote from: Timey
Now take away time.  What we are now left with is something that has nothing of our universe in it.

Only if you are saying that nothing is “something”, which, obviously you are.

Quote from: Timey
This is the 'nothing' that I refer to.  It exists as 'something' only because we have subtracted everything from it.

This makes sense only if you can stand outside your “nothing” and manipulate it.  If that’s the case, you have not reached “nothing”.

Quote from: Timey
Now all that we need to do is work out which order these parameters that we have removed are to be added back, in order for our universe to evolve.

If there really was nothing, who/what would add these parameters back in?

Duty calls; more later.
There never was nothing.

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• 1880
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #206 on: 21/09/2015 17:36:45 »
Quote from: Timey
I do not understand your visualisation of time Bill.

#199 contains only the briefest outline of nearly 60 years of thinking and talking about infinity, nothing and time.  The baldest essentials are that the cosmos (=everything that could ever be) is infinite and unchanging.  Our Universe is “part” of this (I would need to go into more detail than is appropriate here to explain the use of “part”).

Quote from: Timey
Time is a phenomenon.  I would even go so far as to say time is a force.  It does something.  Without time there can be no motion

Time is a measure of change; motion is an aspect of change.  Change is an “illusion” that lets us make sense of our Universe.

Quote from: Timey
Now does anyone at-all want to talk about how time, space and a Casimir fluctuation 'might' arise from a zero geometry, zero content, point?  Because for me, this is the most pertinent part of the discussion!

I hope someone comes in on this, I think it would be a fascinating discussion, but I can’t help with it because the idea of something emerging from nothing is a non-starter for me.  It’s a bit like trying to answer the question: “How would I feel about this if I didn’t exist?”
There never was nothing.

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• 1880
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #207 on: 21/09/2015 17:51:11 »
Quote from: dlorde
If you have a source, I'd love to see the reference. If not, do you have some rationale for the properties of your description of physical infinity, or is it just what 'feels right'?

As I said above, it is the result of years of struggling, in the course of which I have been labelled as all kinds of a crackpot.  I felt like the voice of one crying in the wilderness until I read Julian Barbour's " The End of Time".  This is about the only direction in which I could point you for anything approaching a scientific view with any similarity to mine.  Could JB be a crackpot as well; If so, I'm in fairly good company. []

There never was nothing.

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• 1880
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #208 on: 21/09/2015 18:16:33 »
Quote from: Mordeth
Are you saying all macroscopic behavior is reversible?  It is therefore time asymmetric?

I thought time asymmetry involved non-reversibility.  Have I got it the wrong way round?

Quote from: Mordeth
Do you feel there can be a universal state of maximum entropy where complete equilibrium exists?  If the cosmos is eternal, why are we not in this state now?  Why did we evolve from a clearly low entropy state in the past?

If the concept of entropy applies to the infinite cosmos, the state would seem logically to be that of maximum entropy; but entropy may be only a feature of our experience of the Universe.

"Why" questions do tend to be philosophical.  If we are not in that state now, I have no idea why that would be.

My question would be: How do you know we are not in that eternal/unchanging cosmos, and that our perceptions of time, change etc are not 3+1 dimensional "shadows" of a higher dimensional reality?  At best, that sounds like philosophy, and at worst, sci. fi. but the thinking behind it underlies that most fundamental question: "How can we be here?".

There never was nothing.

#### dlorde

• Neilep Level Member
• 1449
• ex human-biologist & software developer
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #209 on: 22/09/2015 14:18:33 »
... Could JB be a crackpot as well; If so, I'm in fairly good company. []
Thanks, I'll have a browse of his stuff. I don't think going against prevailing opinion necessarily makes one a crackpot, and it's a rare crackpot who's taken seriously enough to generate controversy in the field.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4175
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #210 on: 22/09/2015 21:21:08 »
If time does not exist then the universe is made up of an infinite number of connected states. The only relevant consideration is then the changes in those states. These connections would then explain entanglement but not the so called spooky action at a distance or quantum teleportation. Light is then just the state that that everything else relates to. If at the quantum level things happen in discreet jumps then time is completely removed from the equation. These jumps are then the actual changes in the states of the system.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• 1880
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #211 on: 22/09/2015 22:22:30 »
Quote from: Jeffrey
If time does not exist then the universe is made up of an infinite number of connected states.

I think I’m going to have to post the whole “Infinite Cosmos” idea in order to deal with things like infinite numbers and connected states.  The trouble is, it’s a bit long, and I think there’s a “law” that says the number of people who read a post is inversely proportional to the length of the post.

Quote from: Jeffrey
These connections would then explain entanglement but not the so called spooky action at a distance or quantum teleportation

Thanks for pointing that out; I think the I C idea would offer an explanation for both.  I must give that some thought.
There never was nothing.

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• 1880
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #212 on: 22/09/2015 22:37:55 »
Dlorde, I think David Bohm's work might be worth investigating as well.  Michael Talbot's "The Holographic Universe", if I remember rightly, touches on this, but also contains a lot of weird stuff.   []
There never was nothing.

#### dlorde

• Neilep Level Member
• 1449
• ex human-biologist & software developer
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #213 on: 22/09/2015 23:41:01 »
Dlorde, I think David Bohm's work might be worth investigating as well.  Michael Talbot's "The Holographic Universe", if I remember rightly, touches on this, but also contains a lot of weird stuff.   []
I've read Bohm's 'The Undivided Universe' and 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order', and it's pretty boggling - I'm not really sure whether I understand what he was on about...

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1506
• Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #214 on: 23/09/2015 20:14:21 »
Quote from: Timey
I do not understand your visualisation of time Bill.

#199 contains only the briefest outline of nearly 60 years of thinking and talking about infinity, nothing and time.  The baldest essentials are that the cosmos (=everything that could ever be) is infinite and unchanging.  Our Universe is “part” of this (I would need to go into more detail than is appropriate here to explain the use of “part”).

Quote from: Timey
Time is a phenomenon.  I would even go so far as to say time is a force.  It does something.  Without time there can be no motion

Time is a measure of change; motion is an aspect of change.  Change is an “illusion” that lets us make sense of our Universe.

Quote from: Timey
Now does anyone at-all want to talk about how time, space and a Casimir fluctuation 'might' arise from a zero geometry, zero content, point?  Because for me, this is the most pertinent part of the discussion!

I hope someone comes in on this, I think it would be a fascinating discussion, but I can’t help with it because the idea of something emerging from nothing is a non-starter for me.  It’s a bit like trying to answer the question: “How would I feel about this if I didn’t exist?”

Yes, a discussion concerning the emergence of time, space and a quantum fluctuation in "slow' time would be nice, but unlikely!  I'm not sure 'anyone' truly understands the concept - that gravitational time dilation, as I am describing it, would make an enormous difference to quantum mechanics!!!

I do not understand why you would think, that how you or anyone else 'feels' about a situation would have any bearing upon the physics of that situation.  This is like saying "A tree does not fall unless someone is there to witness it"

Without the concept of everything, nothing cannot exist.  Without the concept of nothing, the concept of everything cannot exist.  The two are inseparable, therefore nothing does exist, but only as a something that everything has been subtracted from.  Like I 'keep' saying, nothing 'is' something!  Logically speaking, this affords the concept that everything can then be added back, and that there will be 'something' about nothing that can initiate a 'physical' reaction of quantum mechanics that 'will' initiate time, geometrical space and a quantum fluctuation to occur from 'this' nothing.  This being a 'potential' possibility in a much 'slower' occurring rate of time.

My ideas concerning time are born from reading Lee Smolin's book "The Trouble with Physics", and I have been formulating this idea for 5 years.  I've given it a lot of thought!  Lee actually presents 'everyone's' ideas including Julian Barbour's... He covers Big Bang, multiverse, eternal cosmos, cyclic universe, steady state, standard model, quantum, quantum gravity quest, GR, SR, Maxwell's equations, redshift, conservation law, second law, how we perceive time, etc, etc.

He explains in great detail 'exactly' which of these concepts are proven and where they are not.  He covers where these concepts fall short of describing our universe as a 'complete' system, why it has been impossible to unify the most relevant and observably consistent theories with each other, and what physicists have been doing and thinking about with regards to furthering the quest for unification of these concepts.

My theory of time solves 'all' of these problems.  However, I now feel it unlikely that anyone 'here' actually wishes to consider the universe experimentally under this premiss.  Although, to say so, you all seem quite happy to consider the universe under much more complicated, less viable, and less testable premiss, that require additional qualities that are 'not' observed... so I will now leave you to it... In any case, it's been great meeting everyone. Thanks for the conversation.  All the best.
Vikki
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• 1880
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #215 on: 23/09/2015 21:38:56 »
Quote from: Jeffrey
These connections would then explain entanglement but not the so called spooky action at a distance or quantum teleportation

Can the infinite cosmos idea explain various features if quantum weirdness?  It is certainly an area worth exploring, because, although many aspects of the idea appear distinctly speculative, if it could even begin to shed light into dark corners it could have some value.

First we should identify some of these weird features.

1. The double-slit experiment in which a single, unobserved, quantum particle (quon, sensu Herbert) appears to be able to pass through both slits at the same time; and, through repetition, can most certainly give rise to an interference pattern which must indicate that each quon interferes with itself.

2.  Quantum entanglement.  How can quons remain entangled even if they are on opposite sides of the Universe?

3.  Quantum teleportation and other “spooky action at a distance”.

In order to see how an infinite cosmos might help with these aspects of QM it will be necessary to accept that in infinity there is no time, and no change, and that our seemingly finite, changing Universe is “part” of this.  Without more background, I acknowledge that this is something of a call to faith, but the reasoning that brought me to this point is available should anyone be interested.

In a timeless, changeless, infinite realm everything that can be “is”.  Although our Universe is “embedded” in this, we are able to perceive only a shadow in which time and change are features of our perceived reality.  So, what happens in the double-slit experiment?  The major problem here is that we have only the language of time and space to try to explain it.  Try to think, not of events happening in sequence, but rather of everything being in a static state.  Even the “snapshots” of Barbour’s timeless realm will not do.  The quon is at the emitter, at both slits, at the screen and anywhere else it could possibly be, statically and eternally.  Even this is an oversimplification, because (again, more background needed) in this infinite realm everything is the entirety of the realm.

The last point, above, leads us into a consideration of quantum entanglement.  The universality to which I refer might be considered as the “conclusion” of David Bohm’s reasoning about the “implicate order”.  The quon at one side of the Universe is the quon at the other side of the Universe, and is everything in between.  The entanglement we perceive equates to an interpretation of Bohm’s “explicate order”.  It is the 3+1 dimensional shadow of the underlying infinite reality.

Viewed in this context, spooky action at a distance is no longer either “spooky” nor is it “action at a distance”. Quantum mechanics is a window into the infinite, through which we are just learning to look.  A measurement is simply the translation of infinite quantum reality, which we cannot see, into our limited perception of reality.  Is it surprising that it looks weird?

How does this idea affect our world and our physics?  It doesn’t, any more than working out, or deciding on, some particular interpretation of QM would make any difference to the technological wonders that can be achieved using it.  The most recent discoveries in particle physics are likely to have more influence on our world and our science; but, surely, anything that involves even a small step towards understanding is worth considering.

There never was nothing.

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• 1880
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #216 on: 23/09/2015 21:44:55 »
Quote from: Timey
so I will now leave you to it

I'm sorry you feel you have to leave.  Hopefully that would be only this thread?

There are at least a couple of things in your last post I want to come back to when I have a few moments, so please don't go too far away.  []
There never was nothing.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4175
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #217 on: 24/09/2015 00:27:32 »
If every particle retains some aspect of every entanglement it has undergone that would explain some things. However it still does not explain the detection of spin in one particle determining the spin of its entangled partner. Even time reversal doesn't make it better as it is distance and not time that makes the difference. An even weirder thing is that the particles may have experienced different rates of time on their separate journeys so simultaneity cannot be maintained due to relativistic effects. The measurements may violate causality. Cause may actually follow effect under some special conditions. If we view the universe with no time then we have to eliminate distance too in order to resolve this. So that all particles are actually very near to each other and our perception of dimensions is the illusion. Of course it may well be something else entirely.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• 1880
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #218 on: 24/09/2015 14:23:56 »
Quote from: Timey
Yes, a discussion concerning the emergence of time, space and a quantum fluctuation in "slow' time would be nice, but unlikely!  I'm not sure 'anyone' truly understands the concept - that gravitational time dilation, as I am describing it, would make an enormous difference to quantum mechanics!!!

I seem always to be rushing, so I might have missed something.  I have a particular interest in time, so would be glad to know more about your “slow time”.

Quote from: Timey
I do not understand why you would think, that how you or anyone else 'feels' about a situation would have any bearing upon the physics of that situation.

I didn’t make my point clear here.  It was not about feelings; I was drawing a comparison between saying: “How can  nothing be something” and “How could I do anything if I didn’t exist”.

Quote from: Timey

Without the concept of everything, nothing cannot exist.  Without the concept of nothing, the concept of everything cannot exist.  The two are inseparable, therefore nothing does exist, but only as a something that everything has been subtracted from.  Like I 'keep' saying, nothing 'is' something!  Logically speaking, this affords the concept that everything can then be added back, and that there will be 'something' about nothing that can initiate a 'physical' reaction of quantum mechanics that 'will' initiate time, geometrical space and a quantum fluctuation to occur from 'this' nothing.  This being a 'potential' possibility in a much 'slower' occurring rate of time.

For the sake of discussion, could we agree to differ on the something/nothing terminology?  What I would really like to understand is what difference the slowing of time would make to the scenario.

It’s a long time since I read "The Trouble with Physics".  Goodness knows if/when I would find time to read it again. A few tips as to where to look for the bit that triggered your thoughts about time would be much appreciated.
There never was nothing.

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• 1880
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #219 on: 24/09/2015 15:06:27 »
Quote from: Jeffrey
If every particle retains some aspect of every entanglement it has undergone that would explain some things. However it still does not explain the detection of spin in one particle determining the spin of its entangled partner. Even time reversal doesn't make it better as it is distance and not time that makes the difference. An even weirder thing is that the particles may have experienced different rates of time on their separate journeys so simultaneity cannot be maintained due to relativistic effects. The measurements may violate causality. Cause may actually follow effect under some special conditions. If we view the universe with no time then we have to eliminate distance too in order to resolve this. So that all particles are actually very near to each other and our perception of dimensions is the illusion. Of course it may well be something else entirely.

Of course, these questions have to be addressed; we do our physics in this Universe where linier time,  separation in space and causality are very relevant. It could not be otherwise.  However, none of these factors would apply in an infinite cosmos where everything just “is”, and where every “part” is the whole.   The distinction between the two might be compared to the distinction between understanding why QM is as it is and being able to use it on a practical level.
There never was nothing.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1506
• Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #220 on: 24/09/2015 20:56:05 »
Quote from: Timey
Yes, a discussion concerning the emergence of time, space and a quantum fluctuation in "slow' time would be nice, but unlikely!  I'm not sure 'anyone' truly understands the concept - that gravitational time dilation, as I am describing it, would make an enormous difference to quantum mechanics!!!

I seem always to be rushing, so I might have missed something.  I have a particular interest in time, so would be glad to know more about your “slow time”.

Ok, Bill... I will explain again.

We think of gravitational time dilation as is described by General Relativity.
I am suggesting, on the basis of the non-unification of quantum mechanics with gravity, that this time dilation that GR describes is only a time dilation 'effect' due to a mass near mass phenomenon.  I am suggesting that GR is 'not' describing 'locational' gravitational time dilation in its considerations as is currently thought.

I am suggesting that 'locational' gravitational time dilation, as opposed to the mass near mass time dilation effect that GR describes, is as widely variant in the rate time occurs at, as a gravity field is in strength.  I am suggesting that time is stopped in a 0 gravity field and that as a gravity field strengthens, the rate time occurs at increases as per the strength of the gravity field. (I could now get into a complicated discussion concerning GR and relativistic mass in relation to gravity potential and kinetic energy, but let's just leave it at that for now, and you accept these parameters experimentally as the premiss)

Clearly anything with mass is going to be subject to this mass near mass phenomenon of time dilation that GR describes.  Light has no mass, so the effects of my 'locational gravitational time dilation will be most obviously observed where light is concerned.  (Ref: Pound Rebka experiment.) I will get back to the business of light and redshift later.

Clearly, if my 'locational' gravitational  time dilation is set at time stopped in a 0 gravity field, then... IF you would 'please' accept the premiss of my nothing that is something???  We can see that without a gravity field present, that time is now stopped.  IF we can find the 'energy' in this nothing that is 'something' to produce a Casimir fluctuation, and this fluctuation carries mass, then we can say that the 'reaction' between the energy that allows for the fluctuation and the mass of the fluctuation, and the resulting gravity field in relation to the mass of the fluctuation, that these parameters started time.  That these elements 'the fluctuation', 'the mass/gravity field' and 'time/motion emerged together, causing a geometric point to expand into geometric space.

What you have here is a creation moment in the microscopic, in 'extremely' slow occurring time.  Now, in order that you not be confused.  This does not mean that events are occurring in slow motion as relative to events occurring in the rate of time that we experience.  But, having said this, a Casimir fluctuation will exist for longer in a slower rate of time than it does in our rate of time. (There is a balancing ratio associated with SR that regulates this speed of events effect)

Virtual particles can arise from Casimir fluctuations as well as particle scattering.  In this slow time a virtual particle will exist for longer.  A virtual particle that exists for longer will take on more of the characteristics of a real particle.  I am suggesting that some of these virtual particles 'make it' and 'become' real particles.

Ok so we have a creation moment and a few real particles, what next?  How can that progress into what we see today? ... Ok, well clearly IF virtual particles can become 'real' in an almost 0 gravity field of a much slower rate of time, then we can say that more particles are produced at the edges/weaker gravity of the gravity field produced by the few particles of our microscopic universe, which are already attracting each other gravitationally into motion and clumping.  However... If we continue 'this' path of logic as is, what we will end up with is a bigger clump of matter in the middle of smaller clumps of matter.  We do not observe this to be the case in our universe.  Everything is relatively evenly spread and evenly clumped.

So... Taking the path of logic into the cyclic universe idea...  We have a microscopic universe with a few real particles that are clumping together. The spacial dimensions of this microscopic universe are dominated by the gravity field, in that where the gravity field runs to 0, time stops.  Where these few particles have now clumped together time runs a bit faster... and in between the clumped mass and the 0 gravity field - time runs marginally slower and slower as it approaches the 0 gravity field.  In this universe of such small spacial dimensions, the few particles of this microscopic universe clumping will cause gravitational reactions on scale with our universe and these clumped particles will form a black hole/black holes that merge into one black hole which jets out all of the particles, into a sea of particles. This has formed the beginning of the next cycle.  The scattering of particles has initiated more virtual particles to become real in the 'slower' time of this sea of particles.  The particles start clumping together.  Where particles have clumped, time runs quicker.  This follows the pattern until black holes are formed, that merge together into one, to jet out all the particles to form the beginning of the next cycle.  Each cycle becoming bigger in amount of particles, spacial size and duration of cycle.

IF you can accept the above as a premiss, then it becomes necessary to look at how we might 'view' events occurring within a rate of time that is occurring at extremely different rates to that of our own rate of time.  This requires looking at phenomenon that are subject to different strength of gravity fields.

First let's look at the world of quantum.  We have already accepted the premiss of particles emerging in extremely slow time in relation to an extremely weak gravity field.  What would be the status of a particles gravity field in relation to a mass near mass phenomenon?  Would it experience a rate of time as experienced by the mass of earth and measured by a cessium atom in relation to the motions of our solar system, as in how we measure all events?  Or will it be operating its existence within the bounds of a rate of time dictated by 'its' mass and 'gravity field' in relation to the greater mass of earth?

Looking at Planck's h constant.  Planck used a time measurement to derive this constant.  In his quest he noticed that there are frequencies that seem to be 'disallowed'.  Quanta do not operate on these frequencies, hence the gaps between the quantum leaps.  I am suggesting that it would be impossible for us to view all of the events of the world of quanta, IF the world of quanta were operating within a different rate of time.  If, say for instance, the gaps between the quantum leaps were to constitute 20% of the entirety of the range, then we would only be viewing 80% of the quanta's time scale, and that the quanta's rate of time would be occurring 20% slower, (faster would also apply) than our own rate of time.   What I am suggesting 'could' bring the world of quantum mechanics out from behind the uncertainty principle and more in line with classical physics.  No more spooky action, no more probability.

Moving to the other end of the scale... Black holes.  Hawking's temperature quandary has truly puzzled physicists, because as a black hole gets bigger, the temperature drops inversely proportional to the increase in its mass.  This is the direct opposite of what we experience in our scale of the universe concerning the addition of energy/mass normally being associated by an increase in temperature cubed proportionally to the mass of any addition.   Under the premiss of time set stopped in a 0 gravity field, the rate of time for the black hole occurs very fast.   We cannot see much of the events of a black hole.  Where time gets so fast at the event horizon, not even a glimmer of light can be viewed of its  time in relation to the rate of ours.  We do detect a temperature though!  As the black hole takes on more mass/gets bigger, it's rate of time runs faster, and as a result we view less of its temperature.  The black holes temperature is in fact rising with its intake of extra mass/energy, but its gravity field is also gaining in strength, causing time to occur faster, causing us to view a lesser percentage of its heat.  (A clever mathematician 'could ' work out by how much a gravity field increases the rate of time by calculating these parameters against each other!)

Now we come to redshift...  Time in the spaces between clumped mass will be running much slower than it will for the clumped mass.   This means that light is travelling through areas of slow time.  It will take the light longer to travel these distances of slow time because of distance in time, and not due to distance in geometry.  It takes light longer to cross the same distance in slower time.  Consequently, we can see that everything is not as far apart as we currently believe.

By making an addition to the equivalence principle stating that the speed of light is only constant to the ratio of the length of a second, we can see that in the case of the gravity field associated with the singular black hole that spells the end of a universes cycle and the beginning of the new, that we will have an escalated (vastly escalated in relation to a universe as big as our current one) speed of light, which when plugged into the equation, e=mc2, should produce enough energy to account for the inflationary period (black holes jets) of every new cycle.

This notion adheres to the conservation law and to the second law.   It gives explanation for star displacement during eclipse.  It gives reason for bullet cluster observations.  It gives reason for galaxy spiral.  It solves long term physics conundrums and presents the universe as a complete and working system, giving cause and viable conditions for the beginning and end of each cycle of the universe.

This theory requires no unobserved additional qualities for the system to work.

This theory can be very simply tested by placing two identical precision atomic clocks at locations that are of the exact same elevation, but of know significant difference in density.  See which one runs faster.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• 1880
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #221 on: 24/09/2015 22:10:17 »
Thanks Timey, I’m impressed!  I’ve read that post once, but it deserves more, so I’m going to return to it.  You must have devoted a lot of time and effort to this, and have obviously looked at the problem from various perspectives.  That, I believe, deserves recognition, whether one agrees with everything, or not.

You know that my position is that nothing cannot be something, but I promise to do my best to put that on hold while I look more closely at your ideas.

I’m glad you’ve not vanished.  BTW, is it OK to call you Vikki, or do you prefer to stick with Timey?
There never was nothing.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4175
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #222 on: 25/09/2015 19:27:11 »
OK then what you are saying is that you have a coordinate space that proper space is mapped on to. Then in the voids the proper space swaps in magnitude with the coordinate space. Correct me if I am wrong here. So that at some cutoff energy gravity no longer contains the expansion of proper space. Since proper space is expanding time starts to slow.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1506
• Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #223 on: 25/09/2015 19:36:35 »
Thanks Timey, I’m impressed!  I’ve read that post once, but it deserves more, so I’m going to return to it.  You must have devoted a lot of time and effort to this, and have obviously looked at the problem from various perspectives.  That, I believe, deserves recognition, whether one agrees with everything, or not.

You know that my position is that nothing cannot be something, but I promise to do my best to put that on hold while I look more closely at your ideas.

I’m glad you’ve not vanished.  BTW, is it OK to call you Vikki, or do you prefer to stick with Timey?

Thanks Bill...!!!  For better or worse, yes, I have spent a lot of time thinking about this idea.  It's just another perspective, I'd be one very lucky ducky if I am actually right in any of it though.  All I can say is that it 'is' based in logical thought process and 'should' be mathematically calculable.  Just can't do the maths myself and this is the reason I am here on the forum.  Trying to find someone interested in helping me.

I know you are unconvinced by a nothing that is a something.  I'm grasping at straws here myself tbh Bill.  All I can say is that it seems to me a more viable prospect than trying to bring forth a Big Bang out of a who knows what...  But I think that a 'proper' particle physicist may well perhaps find some value in the idea of calculating quantum with a variable time aspect.

By all means call me Vikki.  The only reason I signed on as timey is due to this forum not having accepting any part of my real name when I registered. This probably being due to my email address of my name having been repeatedly hacked and all of my contacts list harassed.  I did, in my early days of having this idea, back when I really couldn't explain it in any kind of terms understandable to anyone but me, email quite a few prominent physicists my idea....lol!  This followed by a series of hacked emails, my name has no doubt been thoroughly marked by all and sundry as 'spam'...
« Last Edit: 25/09/2015 19:50:25 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1506
• Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #224 on: 25/09/2015 20:45:32 »
OK then what you are saying is that you have a coordinate space that proper space is mapped on to. Then in the voids the proper space swaps in magnitude with the coordinate space. Correct me if I am wrong here. So that at some cutoff energy gravity no longer contains the expansion of proper space. Since proper space is expanding time starts to slow.

No.  I'm suggesting that the universe is not expanding.  That 'space' is not expanding.  That redshift is due to light travelling through slower time.  It takes the light longer and longer to travel the same lengths of distance.

The only expansion of space that happens in my model is the initial inflation period, this having been caused by the jets of the singular black hole that spells the end of the last universe.  All of the matter from within the last universe is contained in this singular black hole and it jets it all out in particle form as a sea.  A sea of particles that start clumping together.  Space is formed by particles vacating the area as they clump together.   GR predicts a mess of black holes.  In my model the universe is not expanding, or not like we currently think it is anyway. It's spacial dimensions actually reduce overall as matter further clumps.  The mess of black holes will not be far flung as per expanding universe and will merge into one, a singular black hole.

It is hard for me to describe exactly how the alterations to GR might work Jeff, because I do not truly understand the exact and precise ratio of balancing factors between elevation, kinetic energy, gravity potential and relativistic mass.  I don't do maths, remember?  All I can say is that these considerations may not be describing what time dilation is doing in the 'location' of interest, but could be describing a mass near mass phenomenon of mass in that 'location' in relation to earth.  That my idea of locational gravitational time dilation will be most significantly notable in the behaviour of massless light, and therefore I suspect that the rate that time occurs at will be linked to the strength of a gravity field, but that the changes in the rate of time, in respect to changes in the gravity field, will be to the tune of the metric.  The metric then being 'distance in time' not 'distance in geometry'.

I suspect that the space time matrix might still work, but that a time matrix would have to be added to the time aspect of this space time matrix in order for it to do so.

GR will not break down in a black hole under this premiss.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### puppypower

• Hero Member
• 593
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #225 on: 25/09/2015 21:36:27 »
One thing that appears to left out of discussions of GR and black holes is gravity is more than GR, since gravity will also generate pressure which can cause phase changes of matter. For example, in the core of the sun, the pressure due to gravity, helps to induce fusion, which releases high frequency energy. As such, although the core of the sun is at the bottom of the space-time well and time runs slower due to GR, the fastest physical expressions of time also appear; gamma frequencies become the ticks of the local matter/energy clock. GR deals with space-time but pressure deals with the frequency of matter/energy; matter-time.

If you compare space/distance to pressure, in the core of the sun the space of space-time is most contracted, while physical space between matter is also most contracted due to pressure. These go in the same direction. But time of space-time goes in the opposite direction of matter-time.

In a black hole, GR may be approaching the zero limit of space-time, while  the space due to pressure may be tiny, but matter-time is extremely fast. The matter clock is ticking as fast as it can go.

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• 1880
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #226 on: 25/09/2015 21:37:08 »
I’ve been trying to get my head round what it would mean to slow time.  Would it be possible for time to slow without slowing the changes it was measuring?  Is time something that can change independently?

If I have two motors and run them both at 2,000 rpm; there would seem to be two ways in which I could double the rpm.

1. I could accelerate one motor to 4,000 rpm.

2. I could redefine time.  A second is defined as 9,192,631,770 (let’s call this 9.2x10^9) transitions of a caesium atom.  If, for the second motor only, I redefine a second as 1.84x10^10 transitions, I have both motors running at 4,000 rpm.  What have I achieved?

OK, I can’t do that, but suppose the “gnomes” who make these decisions had defined a second as 1.84x10^10 transitions, or as 9,192,631,771 transitions; that would make a difference to how we use time for measuring change; but would it make any difference to time as such?

There never was nothing.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1506
• Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #227 on: 25/09/2015 22:36:59 »
Ok Bill

If you have 2 cars, both cars are travelling at 40 mph.  (This being mph earth hours.)  The first car is experiencing 'earth' time.  The second car is experiencing the slower rate of time.

Both cars travel for 10 miles.

The second car will feel like it has travelled a longer distance.
« Last Edit: 25/09/2015 22:42:08 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• 1880
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #228 on: 25/09/2015 23:53:59 »
Surely neither car will experience time as being anything other than “normal”.

Alice goes on a space flight during which she experiences one year.  When she is reunited with Bob, he has experienced ten years.  I.e. Alice has experienced slower time than has Bob.  If more things can happen in slower time, wouldn’t Alice  have consumed more supplies than Bob?
There never was nothing.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4175
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #229 on: 26/09/2015 02:38:38 »
Then you are wrong timey.I have done the maths.

Consider this. Proper time can be given by:

$$\tau \,=\, \sqrt{\frac{2s}{g}}$$ where s is the distance of 1 metre. This is the proper time of free fall. If we calculate g at various radial distances from the surface of the earth we can plot this progression. The graph is attached. This is linear with an unchanging gradient. If you were right the plot would be a curve.
« Last Edit: 26/09/2015 02:54:32 by jeffreyH »
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1506
• Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #230 on: 26/09/2015 10:30:38 »
Surely neither car will experience time as being anything other than “normal”.

Alice goes on a space flight during which she experiences one year.  When she is reunited with Bob, he has experienced ten years.  I.e. Alice has experienced slower time than has Bob.  If more things can happen in slower time, wouldn’t Alice  have consumed more supplies than Bob?

Yes, in the context of 'experiencing' time Bill, you are correct.  Both cars will experience the time passed as being the same from their own point of view. But the reality of how much 'distance' has been travelled will actually be different in the same time scale.

Both Alice and Bob go off on a space trip at 4000 mph, 'earth' hours.  Bob's time is occurring 10% slower than Alice's.  They both travel for 1 hour.

Alice has covered 4000 miles.
Bob has only covered 3600 miles.

(Clearly I am suggesting that time will get marginally slower and slower in weaker and weaker gravity fields, so this analogy is just to show 'a' slow time in relation to distance - and is not synonymous of how I'm suggesting slow time works in space.)
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1506
• Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #231 on: 26/09/2015 11:32:08 »
Then you are wrong timey.I have done the maths.

Consider this. Proper time can be given by:

$$\tau \,=\, \sqrt{\frac{2s}{g}}$$ where s is the distance of 1 metre. This is the proper time of free fall. If we calculate g at various radial distances from the surface of the earth we can plot this progression. The graph is attached. This is linear with an unchanging gradient. If you were right the plot would be a curve.

Jeff, I'm not sure that a description of proper time in free fall can apply.

The terminology 'free fall' indicates that we are measuring the time for 'mass' that is in free fall 'through' space.  This constitutes a mass near mass phenomenon.  All GR considerations will apply under these circumstances.

I am measuring what time is doing in the 'space' that mass is free falling through, not the 'time' for the 'mass' that is free falling through this 'space'.

Essentially this means that I am creating an observer independent reference frame for time that can be calculated in respect to the gravity field. (Hence the suggestion of a time matrix being added to the time aspect of the space time matrix)

In proper terms, both Alice and Bobs space craft will be subject to mass near mass phenomenon time dilation as they leave earth as per GR.  This effect will escalate up to a point, but as the craft move away from the influence of earths gravity field and travel into deep space, this minute escalation in the crafts rate of time will reverse and they will become subject to slower and slower rates of time.

Ok, so neither Alice or Bob realise that time goes slower and slower as one moves out into deep space.  They both have exactly 40 000 miles to travel and they are both travelling at 4000 mph 'earth hours'.  Neck and neck, its a race to the finish line. Bob experiences engine trouble and his craft is now only travelling at 2000 mph.

During the journey the rate of time in deep space decreases steadily up to the point of our imaginary ribbon finish line by 50%.  The equivalence principle now states that the speed of light is only constant to the ratio of the length of a second and mass cannot exceed the speed of light.  In fact, as Alice's speed of 4000 mph 'earth hours' moves into slower time, this speed is becoming a higher percentage in relation to the decreasing upper speed limit of the speed of light 'allowed' by this slower rate of time.  Alice's journey is now experiencing a greater degree of SR time slowing effects.

Bob was tempted to turn around and go home.  What chance did he have of winning the race now?  But being the good sport that he is and not wanting to leave Alice in a 1 horse race, he continues.  Maybe Alice might encounter engine troubles too!

Bob's speed of 2000 mph 'earth hours' does not amount to as much of a percentage of the upper speed limit afforded by the slower rates of time he is travelling through.  The SR effects are not time slowing his journey as much as they are time slowing Alice's.

Under this remit Jeff, can Bob get to the set finish line of distance 'before' Alice?
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4894
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #232 on: 26/09/2015 13:09:22 »

Both Alice and Bob go off on a space trip at 4000 mph, 'earth' hours.
4000 mph relative to what?
Quote
Bob's time is occurring 10% slower than Alice's.  They both travel for 1 hour.
measured on whose clock?

[/quote]
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1506
• Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #233 on: 26/09/2015 14:06:54 »

Both Alice and Bob go off on a space trip at 4000 mph, 'earth' hours.
4000 mph relative to what?
Quote
Bob's time is occurring 10% slower than Alice's.  They both travel for 1 hour.
measured on whose clock?

Ok Alan.  On the basis that this particular consideration was just to give Bill a feel for slow time in relation to distance travelled and not depicting a suggested reality.

The answer to your questions are 4000 mph 'earth hours' relative to the distance travelled...

Bobs clock would be ticking slower than Alice's, measured relative to the strength of his locational gravity field, in relation to his own associated mass, and regulated by his speed of travel.

These questions are much more 'fun' when answered in relation to the considerations in Post 233, which I am suggesting do constitute a 'potential' reality.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4175
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #234 on: 26/09/2015 16:32:26 »
That unchanging gradient will go all the way to infinity due to the inverse square nature of gravity. It is now up to YOU to show mathematically that this is wrong. No more word play.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1506
• Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #235 on: 26/09/2015 18:33:56 »
Why would I need to prove that gradient to be wrong in order to prove that time stops in a zero gravity field?

Check list:
1) The gradient that you have calculated is for an object in free fall, am I right?
2) This gradient follows the inverse square law, right?
3) You have calculated this gradient according to a method associated with 'proper time' and this method is synonymous to GR, right?

If you can answer these questions, I still won't be able to do the maths to determine how the gradient of my locational gravitational time dilation is linked to the gradient of a gravity field that is subject to the inverse square law, but I think I 'could' make a very good attempt at explaining the method by which 'you' could do it Jeff.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4175
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #236 on: 26/09/2015 18:46:14 »
I already know it is wrong. You are never free from the influence of gravity. What I did suggest is a cutoff energy which you objected to because it too went against you ideas.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• 1880
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #237 on: 26/09/2015 20:15:43 »
Vikki, are you sure you are not a scientist?  "This is the answer to your question; whatever your question might have been" is a common response from scientists.  []

The question was:

Quote
If more things can happen in slower time, wouldn’t Alice  have consumed more supplies than Bob?

This is something I found quite helpful; even the equations were not too frightening.

There never was nothing.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1506
• Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #238 on: 26/09/2015 20:41:33 »
I already know it is wrong. You are never free from the influence of gravity. What I did suggest is a cutoff energy which you objected to because it too went against you ideas.

Well actually Jeff, I had no idea what you meant by a cut off point.  If you could elaborate perhaps I might understand.  It had no relation to what I meant, (which is what you were asking about) or not as I understand it anyway... although I can accept that I haven't perhaps understood it, and therefore am open to doing so.

I do not understand why you would think that my ideas incorporate being free from the influence of gravity.  Time is time.  Gravity is gravity.  They are linked via gravitational time dilation.  We know this already.  I am just suggesting that how we think they are linked is perhaps wrong.  That this observation we make of time dilation is occurring for different reasons than we think.  That actual 'locational' time dilation is a much wider variant on a scale that echoes the strength of a gravity field, and is linked to the strength of a gravity field, but please realise that this locational gravitational time dilation does 'not' change the rate of time as per the inverse square law as gravity changes in strength as per radius.  This being very obviously 'not' a possibility when considering the behaviour of temperature in the black hole. (this being under the remit of time stopped in a 0 gravity field.)
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1506
• Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #239 on: 26/09/2015 20:48:05 »
Vikki, are you sure you are not a scientist?  "This is the answer to your question; whatever your question might have been" is a common response from scientists.  []

The question was:

Quote
If more things can happen in slower time, wouldn’t Alice  have consumed more supplies than Bob?

This is something I found quite helpful; even the equations were not too frightening.

Actually Bill, I didn't really think it an important factor to the discussion.  Everyone has talked the *rse off the twin paradox.  Why would we wish to go down that road?

The pertinent part of this discussion, regarding slower time due to locational gravitational time dilation, lies in the factor of distance travelled!

If you travel the same distance in slower time it will take you longer.  If you didn't know you were travelling in slower time you would think you had travelled a longer distance.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• 1880
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #240 on: 27/09/2015 00:05:43 »
Quote from: Vikki
Actually Bill, I didn't really think it an important factor to the discussion.  Everyone has talked the *rse off the twin paradox.  Why would we wish to go down that road?

Perhaps because it is relevant to whether or not more things can happen if time is slower.
I carefully avoided suggesting that Alice and Bob were twins.  []

Quote from: Vikki
The pertinent part of this discussion, regarding slower time due to locational gravitational time dilation, lies in the factor of distance travelled!
Is that distance travelled per unit time?

Quote from: Vikki
I am suggesting that 'locational' gravitational time dilation, as opposed to the mass near mass time dilation effect that GR describes, is as widely variant in the rate time occurs at, as a gravity field is in strength.

I’m still not clear on the distinction between “locational gravity” and “mass near mass gravity”.

Quote from: Vikki
If you travel the same distance in slower time it will take you longer.

Now you've really lost me.  I thought you could achieve more in slower time.
There never was nothing.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4175
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #241 on: 27/09/2015 00:14:29 »
I already know it is wrong. You are never free from the influence of gravity. What I did suggest is a cutoff energy which you objected to because it too went against you ideas.

Well actually Jeff, I had no idea what you meant by a cut off point.  If you could elaborate perhaps I might understand.  It had no relation to what I meant, (which is what you were asking about) or not as I understand it anyway... although I can accept that I haven't perhaps understood it, and therefore am open to doing so.

I do not understand why you would think that my ideas incorporate being free from the influence of gravity.  Time is time.  Gravity is gravity.  They are linked via gravitational time dilation.  We know this already.  I am just suggesting that how we think they are linked is perhaps wrong.  That this observation we make of time dilation is occurring for different reasons than we think.  That actual 'locational' time dilation is a much wider variant on a scale that echoes the strength of a gravity field, and is linked to the strength of a gravity field, but please realise that this locational gravitational time dilation does 'not' change the rate of time as per the inverse square law as gravity changes in strength as per radius.  This being very obviously 'not' a possibility when considering the behaviour of temperature in the black hole. (this being under the remit of time stopped in a 0 gravity field.)

That is just a lot of words put together in a misleading fashion to confuse the issue. When describing theories science should be precise and unambiguous. Everyone should be able to read and understand what is meant. You dodge around the issues. You need to learn physics. By that I mean the mathematics as well as the vague concepts that you seem to have acquired. I am quite fond of puzzles. Science is full of them. They usually arise from unexpected results of observations. They are not just conjured up in the minds of scientists. Explaining them then leads to new theories. You are trying to rewrite physics to suit your ideas. Not a good idea if you want to be taken seriously.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1506
• Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #242 on: 27/09/2015 00:51:26 »
Quote from: Vikki
Actually Bill, I didn't really think it an important factor to the discussion.  Everyone has talked the *rse off the twin paradox.  Why would we wish to go down that road?

Perhaps because it is relevant to whether or not more things can happen if time is slower.
I carefully avoided suggesting that Alice and Bob were twins.  []

Of course more things can happen if time goes slower.  The twin paradox is more concerning SR effects of slowing due to speed of travel. Edit: humour noted

Quote from: Vikki
The pertinent part of this discussion, regarding slower time due to locational gravitational time dilation, lies in the factor of distance travelled!
Is that distance travelled per unit time?

Overall distance travelled, per speed, per unit time.

I’m still not clear on the distinction between “locational gravity” and “mass near mass gravity”.

Imagine a clock placed in a location at a radius in elevation to earth.  That clock will tell you what time is doing in relation to that clock.  Now take the clock out of the equation and tell me what time dilation is doing in the location that the clock was in.

I am suggesting that the time dilation registered by the clock in that location is caused by the clock and it's related mass in relation to earth's mass.
I am suggesting that if we take away the clock and it's related mass from the location, the time dilation at this location will be subject to the gravity field of that radius.
I am suggesting that locational gravitational time dilation is set with time stopped in a 0 gravity field.

Quote from: Vikki
If you travel the same distance in slower time it will take you longer.

Now you've really lost me.  I thought you could achieve more in slower time.

It's a simple equation.  Mph.  If the hour is a longer hour, it will take longer to travel a mile.  We could drop the speed factor in relation to the equation to the same effect.  A slower speed of motion or a slower speed of hour will result in it taking longer to travel a mile.

Now then.  If you didn't know you were travelling through slower time, and you have observed that your speed has remained constant, you will then believe that you have travelled a further distance than a mile.
« Last Edit: 27/09/2015 01:56:46 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1506
• Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #243 on: 27/09/2015 01:02:41 »
I already know it is wrong. You are never free from the influence of gravity. What I did suggest is a cutoff energy which you objected to because it too went against you ideas.

Well actually Jeff, I had no idea what you meant by a cut off point.  If you could elaborate perhaps I might understand.  It had no relation to what I meant, (which is what you were asking about) or not as I understand it anyway... although I can accept that I haven't perhaps understood it, and therefore am open to doing so.

I do not understand why you would think that my ideas incorporate being free from the influence of gravity.  Time is time.  Gravity is gravity.  They are linked via gravitational time dilation.  We know this already.  I am just suggesting that how we think they are linked is perhaps wrong.  That this observation we make of time dilation is occurring for different reasons than we think.  That actual 'locational' time dilation is a much wider variant on a scale that echoes the strength of a gravity field, and is linked to the strength of a gravity field, but please realise that this locational gravitational time dilation does 'not' change the rate of time as per the inverse square law as gravity changes in strength as per radius.  This being very obviously 'not' a possibility when considering the behaviour of temperature in the black hole. (this being under the remit of time stopped in a 0 gravity field.)

That is just a lot of words put together in a misleading fashion to confuse the issue. When describing theories science should be precise and unambiguous. Everyone should be able to read and understand what is meant. You dodge around the issues. You need to learn physics. By that I mean the mathematics as well as the vague concepts that you seem to have acquired. I am quite fond of puzzles. Science is full of them. They usually arise from unexpected results of observations. They are not just conjured up in the minds of scientists. Explaining them then leads to new theories. You are trying to rewrite physics to suit your ideas. Not a good idea if you want to be taken seriously.

LOL!!!
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4175
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #244 on: 27/09/2015 02:11:07 »
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1506
• Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #245 on: 27/09/2015 02:22:15 »
...and there speaks the man who was telling lightarrow only 4 or so weeks ago how he had just come to grips with the double light slit experiment and was moving on to complex conjugates, was it?  My photographic memory fails me slightly.

Oh, yes... and I nearly fell off my chair!

Can I think of one time when you have even attempted to answer 'any' question I have posed to you in response to your responses to my posts.

No... no I can't!  I rest my case...  Lol indeed!
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4175
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #246 on: 27/09/2015 02:46:10 »
Do you even know what a complex conjugate is?
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

#### mathew_orman

• Sr. Member
• 132
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #247 on: 27/09/2015 09:34:10 »
Local collapse of planets is a natural phenomena and happens continuously... At some point resulting sun explodes due to extreme gravity...

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1506
• Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #248 on: 27/09/2015 11:07:01 »
Do you even know what a complex conjugate is?

It surprises me Jeff, that in this day and age you would ask anyone who can clearly read, and who is obviously connected to the internet, a question consisting of the words "do you even know what a ? ...is?"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_conjugate

http://www.mathwords.com/c/complex_conjugate.htm

http://www.mathcentre.ac.uk/resources/sigma%20complex%20number%20leaflets/sigma-complex6-2009-1.pdf

Need I continue?

Now Jeff, do you even know what this post is?  I'll give you a clue.... Common sense?  Or sarcasm?
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4175
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #249 on: 27/09/2015 16:32:10 »
So I attack your theory and you attack me personally. It says a lot about you. If you could defend your theory I suppose you would. Wouldn't you?
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.