Are we at the edge of the universe already?

[rudolfhendrique]

Hello, I would like to introduce a new vision on space and time. My suggestion is that we are "now" on the edge of the universe and that the velocity of light is actually the speed of time. The best way to tell my idea is to watch this animation I made on youtube.

 

 

I think that behind the edge of the universe there will be tomorrow. I would suggest that the speed of light is the absolute minimum of time and space. Light is just like a trail while we travel into the 4th dimension.

 

 

Well, let's see what you think about this?

[YT2095]

based upon the idea that "no matter where you are, There you are" then there IS no "Edge" to the universe.

besides, we have Pictures of things Much older than us that Are close to the "edge" and we`re no where near them. so your Wrong.

[rudolfhendrique]

There can not be a "wrong" in pseudoscience. That's why we call it pseudoscience.

 

And yes, we can see things that are older then us, but in this universe all matter have the same age. My body is made of the same material wich I see now in a telescope as matter from the past. We are all made of stardust, isn't?

[YT2095]

it`s not all the same age, newer elements are being created all the while (and Annihilated), there IS stuff older than us.

 

and yes, even in P&S stuff can be Wrong where there is Clear evidence to the contrary.

[rudolfhendrique]

it`s not all the same age, newer elements are being created all the while (and Annihilated), there IS stuff older than us.

 

and yes, even in P&S stuff can be Wrong where there is Clear evidence to the contrary.

 

 

Oke, but this crreation of newer element are happening in the "now". So I try to tell that this creation is the edge of the universe.

 

And if there is an border at the universe, there should be 2 sites. My suggestion is that the "now" is the edge where we create the past.

 

Creation could be the edge of the universe. And all is created biy older matter.

[Bignose]

...the velocity of light is actually the speed of time.

 

Please explain this using basic units. Because as written, it is pretty much meaningless.

 

A velocity or a speed is a distance per unit time. And the speed of light definitely has units of distance per unit time. But what exactly is a "speed of time"? Time per unit time would be dimensionless, so that cannot be equal to the velocity of light. So, what are the dimensions of "speed of time"? and what exactly does it mean?

[rudolfhendrique]

Please explain this using basic units. Because as written, it is pretty much meaningless.

 

A velocity or a speed is a distance per unit time. And the speed of light definitely has units of distance per unit time. But what exactly is a "speed of time"? Time per unit time would be dimensionless, so that cannot be equal to the velocity of light. So, what are the dimensions of "speed of time"? and what exactly does it mean?

 

In the video I try to explain this. You can switch the sound of if you don't like the music..

 

We are used to say that we measure time in sec/sec. So I ask myself, how long take's a sec?

Then I realize that a second alway last 300.000 lighkilometers. De duration of a second is made by the amount of time a mass needs to travel a specific distance. It's not without a reason that we count time in months, years. Also the duration of a second is made by the movement of planet earth. ( long time ago )

Edited March 15, 2009 by rudolfhendrique

[Bignose]

In the video I try to explain this. You can switch the sound of if you don't like the music..

 

YouTube videos don't seem to work too well on my computer, can't you please write it out in mathematical detail here?

 

We are used to say that we measure time in sec/sec.

 

No, a sec/sec would be dimensionless. We measure time with units of time, not dimensionless.

 

Then I realize that a second alway last 300.000 lighkilometers.

 

If you are going to use that precise of a number (three decimal zeros), it probably should be the right number. 299 792 458 m / s while close to 300 000 000, isn't the same.

 

--------

 

Also, you didn't really answer my question. If it is in the video, can you please write it out here? I still want to know how something that is measured using one set of dimensions can be measured using a different dimension altogether.

[rudolfhendrique]

YouTube videos don't seem to work too well on my computer, can't you please write it out in mathematical detail here?

 

 

 

No, a sec/sec would be dimensionless. We measure time with units of time, not dimensionless.

 

 

 

If you are going to use that precise of a number (three decimal zeros), it probably should be the right number. 299 792 458 m / s while close to 300 000 000, isn't the same.

 

--------

 

Also, you didn't really answer my question. If it is in the video, can you please write it out here? I still want to know how something that is measured using one set of dimensions can be measured using a different dimension altogether.

 

 

You can say that the duration of a second is iqual to 300.000km of light. I think that light itself is not moving but that this is just a trail witch we are leaving into the past time.

 

So, while matter travels into the 4th dimension light is leaving a trail into the 3th dimension. The travel from the 3th tot the 4th dimenion happens in the "now", I see this point as the edge of the universe.

 

I know that the speed of light we measure is a bit different then 300.000km/sec, but this is just a number. Since the lightspeed we measure is a constant speed we could call this speed simplyfied 1 lightsecond witch is the number for the speed of time.

 

299.792.458 m/s our 299.792.458 s/m is the same.

[Bignose]

I think that light itself is not moving but that this is just a trail witch we are leaving into the past time.

 

But, light is made up of photons and we can observe photons leaving one point and impacting upon another. How can this be if "light is not moving"?

 

So, while matter travels into the 4th dimension

 

I don't even know what this means. How does matter "travel" into a different dimension? Dimensions are pretty well defined mathematically, (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension as a decent start). How does your use of the word dimension apply mathematically?

 

And, finally, here is a big one: What tests could you conceive that would falsify your idea? Because for this to even be slightly scientific, there has to be tests that can falsify your idea. So, what tests can you conceive of that would falsify your idea?

[rudolfhendrique]

And, finally, here is a big one: What tests could you conceive that would falsify your idea? Because for this to even be slightly scientific, there has to be tests that can falsify your idea. So, what tests can you conceive of that would falsify your idea?

 

In theory you can use the twinparadox to prove this idea. I quess you know this paradox?

 

Say my brother makes a trip trough space while I stay on planet earth.

 

While I wait for 1 year for him to come back he comes back and is only 60 seconds older.

 

The earth moves about 30km/sec trough space in a circle arround the sun, but the sun is moving asswel. So in fact you don't make a circle.

 

He comes back and is only 60 seconds older. The maximum distance he was traveeling could not be more than 60sec x 300.000km/sec whitch is about 18.000.000km.

 

Sinci I was traveling with 30km/sec during 1 year the distacne I was travelling was minimum 30km/sec x 1 year = 31.536.000sec x 30/sec = 94.60.80.000km.

 

So, in fact my brother was moving slower trough space/time. If he woukld/could reach the absolute lightspeed he would be standing still in time and space. This is why I suggest that the lightspeed is the absolute minimum of time/space. I think that light is just a trail which leaves his source with the speed of matter.

[Bignose]

No, I think you misunderstood my question. AND, you didn't actually address any of my points -- the issue of being able to observe photons leaving an emitter and impacting upon a detector pretty much defeats the concept of "light not moving" doesn't it?

 

And, you've misunderstood my question about falsifying your idea. Because how does the twins paradox confirm or deny your idea? It fits with the current theory, so how does that discriminate between your idea and the current idea. You need to come up with an experiment that would show that your theory is clearly right or clearly wrong.

[rudolfhendrique]

While matter travels into the future, light leaves a trail of energy behind. So light can impact an other object, as long this object travels into time. All light comes from optional points in the future I guess.

 

The vtweinparadox tells us that ime will stop at the lightspeed, isn't it? So I think there can not be any movement at all at lightspeed. In my opimnion movement is time.

 

Try to see matter as a train traveling with a constant speed over the tracks, for every 300.000km it will count 0ne second of time. If the train slows down the second will last longer white the observer on the train can not measure this.

 

Whgen the train reaches the speed of the track's it will stand still. There is no time and space at this point. When the train would put on the brake it will stand still, if it would go behind this point, it will travel backwards over the tracks. This is the same effect what we will see if we could go "faster" then light. You would look backards in time and see what you have done before.

 

The point of going forward and backwards in time sounds for me like standing still.

 

I can not prove this yet, but I try to open an new idea where the lightspeed is actually the speed of our own time.

[rudolfhendrique]

So what about my ideas?

[Bignose]

So what about my ideas?

 

Any discussion of your ideas hinges upon your addressing the points I've raised above satisfactory. I've asked many questions, and really have gotten little or no answers. There is no point in discussing any of the deeper ideas until you and address some of the issues with the foundation of your ideas. It's like building a 2nd and 3rd story on a house built on sand -- it has no foundation, and the house will eventually collapse. I'm trying to get you to address some of the basic stuff first so that if you should want to continue to build your house, it will be built on rock and will survive.

 

So:

 

You need to come up with an experiment that would show that your theory is clearly right or clearly wrong.

 

How does matter "travel" into a different dimension? Dimensions are pretty well defined mathematically, (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension as a decent start). How does your use of the word dimension apply mathematically?

 

So, what are the dimensions of "speed of time"? and what exactly does it mean?

 

these are the ones I didn't feel were answered satisfactorily at all. (I have many, many more, but these 3 should be enough to get started for now.) In order to discuss your ideas scientifically on a science forum, you need to be able to answer these questions well, using precise and exact terms, and cite examples or experiments that back up your idea. Otherwise, it is all just a story. Science is looking for evidence that what you say is right, not just good story telling to make people believe what you sat is right. So, where is the evidence? Science also won't reject any old theory until a better one comes along. Better in that the new theory is more precise, more accurate, predicts more phenomena, etc. What predictions can your theory make? Can you show some math that shows your theory making predictions? Because the current model is pretty excellent, and while there are undoubtedly better models out there to be discovered someday in the future, a great deal of evidence showing that the new model is better will have to be presented. Are you prepared to present some of that?

 

Because, otherwise, a science forum may not be the place you want to discuss your idea with. All of the stuff in the last paragraph is science. If you aren't willing to do science, then I suggest you take your idea to a philosophy or new age type forum. Because without the stuff above, it isn't science.

 

I'm willing to keep discussing your idea with you scientifically, but the questions I have raised need to be addressed scientifically and satisfactorily. I'll give you all the time you need to address them, but I think that they need to be addressed to continue to discuss your idea on a science-based forum.

[rudolfhendrique]

This topic is called pseudoscience and speculations. If I had my ideas in the correct scientific way I would not be posting here.

 

I put this theiory here because I'm looking for people who can find himself in this ideas. Then the discussion should be how we can prove this? If I had the fomrule allready I would not ask this.

 

I see the twinparadox as a prove for my theory. Time slows down at the speed of light, space is dilated to a zero point. Can there be movement then?

 

Dimension is the name for the space/time where we are in exsiting, and I suggest that we have a speed trough time. How can you define the length or speed of a second?

 

I'm posting here because I try to improve this theory, so I'm looking for suggestion's which can help me to make the theory better..

[Bignose]

This topic is called pseudoscience and speculations. If I had my ideas in the correct scientific way I would not be posting here.

 

This is the first step in the crucible of scientific inquiry. If your idea cannot even survive Q&As on an Internet forum, how are you ever going to get serious support for your idea?

 

Besides, scientific rigor is still required in the P&S section. The laws of science still apply, but this section is a little more loose in that people are allowed to propose different speculations, but then must address them and any questions about them scientifically. That's all I've been trying to do is to post questions for you to think about scientifically.

 

I've been trying to help make your theory better, by trying to get you to answer questions about your theory that don't jive with the current understanding. You've been using words that have specific meaning in a scientific sense not according to their specific meaning. Like dimension.

 

Quite simply, by answering the questions I posed, you will help your theory. Because these are exactly the kind of questions any other physicist or mathematician is going to ask, too. They can't just make up formulas, they have to be able to describe something with the formula, and what they describe has to make sense.

 

The length of a second is very well defined: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second though I think it may be more accurate to say that the duration of a second is very well defined. Length is a metric along a coordinate axis (or dimension!) and again that notion of length is also very well defined.

 

And, again in terms of being very specific, what is the "speed" of a second? It is not up to me to define, this is your idea, why don't you define exactly what you mean by the speed of a second?

 

Time slows down at the speed of light, sure, but there is definitely movement. Again, photons move from one place to another -- a finite distance in a finite time -- so there is definitely movement at the speed of light. Again, I feel like this is a case of using words that have exact meanings in a very inexact way. Poems and novels can get away with this, in science you cannot because when you say things like "movement" it means something very specific.

 

Ultimately, every section on this forum obeys the same rules -- that the posts must be backed up scientifically. As I wrote, this section is a little looser in that initial ideas that aren't as well supported can be proposed, but then they are scrutinized and need to answer questions that are scientifically justified. That's all I've been trying to do, is ask questions in a scientific manner. And ultimately, if those ideas cannot be supported, if those questions cannot be answered, the main idea is rejected.

[rudolfhendrique]

Time stops at the speed of light. So where is the time for a photon to move?

[Bignose]

The speed of light is a known quantity, 299 792 458 m / s. There are many experiments that verify this number (that's why we know it to such accuracy). If it didn't take any time for photons to travel from point A to point B, the speed of light would be [math]\infty[/math]. It isn't. It takes time. This is known -- why the insistence on denying known facts?

 

And, why the refusal to address any of my direct questions?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

rudolfhendrique, you may speculate as much as you want, but you need to answer questions put forth about your speculations. Were I to say "Pink unicorns exist!" I could say it as speculation, but I wouldn't be saying anything useful unless I could produce a pink unicorn as proof. The same applies here: a useful way to improve your hypothesis is to listen to what Bignose and others say.

 

If you simply refuse to answer Bignose's questions then this discussion is pointless.

[rudolfhendrique]

The speed of light is a known quantity, 299 792 458 m / s. There are many experiments that verify this number (that's why we know it to such accuracy). If it didn't take any time for photons to travel from point A to point B, the speed of light would be [math]\infty[/math]. It isn't. It takes time. This is known -- why the insistence on denying known facts?

 

And, why the refusal to address any of my direct questions?

 

Someone tells me that the size of the universe could be at least 156 billion light-years wide.

 

 

With an age of 13.7 billionyears how can this be possible? The matter would travel much faster then light in this case.

 

( and yes, I try to answer all question's, but I don't have all the answers. Nobody has.)

[Sisyphus]

Someone tells me that the size of the universe could be at least 156 billion light-years wide.

 

 

With an age of 13.7 billionyears how can this be possible? The matter would travel much faster then light in this case.

 

( and yes, I try to answer all question's, but I don't have all the answers. Nobody has.)

 

It's possible, because since the time the oldest light we see was emitted, space has expanded to many, many times it's original size. So the objects we see with that ancient light were much closer than 13.7 lightyears at the time we're seeing them, and by now are much farther than 13.7 billion lightyears.

[Bignose]

( and yes, I try to answer all question's, but I don't have all the answers. Nobody has.)

 

I don't expect anyone to have all the answers -- but the questions I have posed are questions that will need answers should you try to advance your theory. And should be answered if you want to keep discussing your theory on this forum.

 

More than half of my questions are simply asking you to better explain and define your terms. I don't think that this is too much to ask. Terms like "speed of time". I know what a speed it, I know what time is, but putting the together into the phrase "speed of time" doesn't mean anything to me. You are using words I am familiar with in unfamiliar ways. All I am asking if for you to explain what you mean by that better in a way that I can understand. This isn't too much to ask, especially if you want your ideas to be understood. Because right now, I don't.

[rudolfhendrique]

Maybe this can answer all questions..

 

It's very easy to prove that Einstein's relativity theory is wrong. All matter travles with the same speed!

 

We all know what is a bicycle.

 

You put some force on the padle of the bike and your bike will go forwart. True!

 

 

Why do you go forward?

 

This is because there is no differnce in the speed you turn the padle's and the speed you go forward.

 

In fact, you go forward because all the elements of the bike and the wheel are standing still to eachother.

 

If they really would move to eachother, you will lose a lot of energy and NOT going forward.

 

See this in a larger concept with the tracks of an armytank, the track's do not move on the road, they are standing still. This is why the tank goes forward!

 

The weheels do the same thing, they don't move to eachother, they are standign stil, to eachoter at every single moment.

 

It is time what make's us going forward, not the wheel.

[iNow]

It's very easy to prove that Einstein's relativity theory is wrong.

Well, considering that GPS works so well, MUCH more likely is that YOU are wrong, but hey, whatever floats your boat (which is, of course, bouyancy).

 

Einstein's work may not apply in all situations or scales, but to flat out call it wrong is imply ignorant.

 

Now, I'll back away and wait until someone more knowledgeable than me about relativity comes in and spanks you even harder, and in more detail, for that ridiculousness above.