blike Posted August 23, 2002 Posted August 23, 2002 We know the temperature and hence the frequency of radiation energy in the universe at quark confinement. The radiation from that moment of quark confinement is stretchd a million-millionfold. Its redshift is observed at 10^12. In other words, relative to our time, one million million of our seconds pass for one "universal second" to have passed. Is it possible that time on earth traveled faster than cosmic universe time? Say for us 15 billion years have passed, but on a cosmic scale, only a handful of days have passed?
aman Posted August 23, 2002 Posted August 23, 2002 I like the idea of almost living forever. It's an incredible and wonderful postulation you present and now I have to crunch it in my head. It's almost a parodox, almost. All my Quarks are moving near the speed of light. Just aman
quantumdream Posted August 24, 2002 Posted August 24, 2002 Assuming inflation with its greatly superluminal expansion, there should be multiple spherical event horizons (cycles) alternating outward for each multiple of "c." First our local forward time universe, then a tachyonic reverse time spacetime, then forward, etc., reflected many powers of ten times relative to our observation. Our initial horizon is defined by where the conventional-time cosmos first expands away from us at the speed of light. Beyond that a mirror tachyonic spacetime (c<v<2c) reverses the direction of time, as does the third region of spacetime (2c<v<3c) over that of the second, now effecting forward time once more. This continues for n cycles, where n~10^80/10^28, the ratio between the inflationary and linearly expanding universe radii.
aman Posted August 25, 2002 Posted August 25, 2002 Do you think tapping into this "harmonic" expansion would make C+ travel possible? Maybe that was what Tesla was imagining. Just aman
quantumdream Posted August 27, 2002 Posted August 27, 2002 Inflation is also accessible here and now in high energy, near Planck scale (10^-24 cm) physics. That may indeed allow superluminal travel. I'm not familiar with the aspect of Tesla you mentioned, but it may be possible for one to tunnel into these higher "harmonics" subatomically to achieve c+. Just adjust your phase around the frequency 10^35 1/sec (that of GUT).
Radical Edward Posted August 27, 2002 Posted August 27, 2002 Originally posted by quantumdream Just adjust your phase that made me laugh, honestly
aman Posted August 28, 2002 Posted August 28, 2002 I see some good math and a reasonable "proposition". It's worth investigation. I don't mind exploring ideas. I didn't see you having a question but a statement of balderdash. Sometimes that adds validity to an idea. Critisism from the establishment. Back to the posting. Thanks quantumdream. I was wondering if we could get a mass to resonate enough to shift out of phase without destroying it. It would take a great deal of energy. Maybe the surface of a craft that was covered in an alloy that could withstand the resonance and not destroy the interior. Just for thought. Just aman
Radical Edward Posted August 28, 2002 Posted August 28, 2002 It was the way he used the word 'just' - as if it was an easy thing to do like just going to the shop for a minute.
aman Posted August 29, 2002 Posted August 29, 2002 Thanks Radical E. That brings up the question of, who would have a lab equipped to investigate these ideas? I wish I did. Rockwell closed off my spigot when the defense industry went into the dumpster back in the 80's. Do you have access to a lab over there quantumdream, or are you applying for a grant? Just aman.
XxSuprNovaGrlxX Posted April 7, 2003 Posted April 7, 2003 its true that when we see the light from lets say a supernova type 1 explosion we are seeing what happened millions tp billions of years ago correct? So if we had a telescope strong enough, could we see the big bang or perhaps have access to what came before?:scratch:
Ryoken Posted April 7, 2003 Posted April 7, 2003 We can see the background radiation from the big bang, and that is as far as we can see to my knowledge.
fafalone Posted April 7, 2003 Posted April 7, 2003 The light containing what happened during the big bang would be travelling away from us. And we can observe beyond the known universe, we just don't know what we're looking for, so it looks like nothing across all wavelengths.
Radical Edward Posted April 7, 2003 Posted April 7, 2003 everything beyond (before) the cosmic microwave background is opaque, and so you can`t see it. the CMB is itself an important physical event, which occured when matter and energy decoupled, and thermal equilibrium was lost (you can tell because the CMB is blackbody radiation - this only occurs in objects in thermal equilibrium) This is why so much attention is paid to the CMB. furthermore, it comes from everywhere in the universe.
Geocentricman Posted June 19, 2003 Posted June 19, 2003 Originally posted by XxSuprNovaGrlxX its true that when we see the light from lets say a supernova type 1 explosion we are seeing what happened millions tp billions of years ago correct? So if we had a telescope strong enough, could we see the big bang or perhaps have access to what came before?:scratch: No completly wrong. EArth much much younger.
Sayonara Posted June 19, 2003 Posted June 19, 2003 Originally posted by Geocentricman No completly wrong. EArth much much younger. Either show mathematical proof, provide repeatable experimental data, or keep it in the religion and philosophy forum. Option 3 is my favourite.
NapoleonGH Posted June 27, 2003 Posted June 27, 2003 earth IS much younger than 15 billion years though, it is only like 4 billion years old
Sayonara Posted June 27, 2003 Posted June 27, 2003 Originally posted by NapoleonGH earth IS much younger than 15 billion years though, it is only like 4 billion years old True, but if you followed Geocentricman's 4 other posts he left you'd see he meant more like 6000 years.
NapoleonGH Posted June 27, 2003 Posted June 27, 2003 i know that is what he says, but i wanted to correct that little mistake anyway and i figured it would be a way of both correcting that little mistake and pissing off a creationist, my two favorite pasttimes
Sayonara Posted June 27, 2003 Posted June 27, 2003 Originally posted by NapoleonGH i know that is what he says, but i wanted to correct that little mistake anyway and i figured it would be a way of both correcting that little mistake and pissing off a creationist, my two favorite pasttimes What mistake? I could just as easily ask you to show mathematical proof. It is not a commentary on what I believe.
NapoleonGH Posted June 27, 2003 Posted June 27, 2003 no a previous post had stated that the earth is 15 billion years old rather than the correct 4 billion, and that number is derived from quite a few different independant sources, both astronomical and geological, best as i know. That is the mistake i was correcting
aman Posted July 15, 2003 Posted July 15, 2003 I imagine a guy on a surfboard on the edge of the big bang riding the wave to the edge of our 14 billion year old universe. I can imagine that a small amound of time has passed for him as he has travelled at C velocity except for the little drag that has slowed his board a little deeper in the wave. For The surfers time its been an instant. For us slowed in the wave it is 4 billion years. Maybe near the beginning time is near infinite? I have to ponder this a little more since I just reread all this post. Thanks Blike. Just aman
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now