Theory of time space and movement

[RICHARDBATTY]

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=396&stc=1 This explains some of the ideas I've put forward before in more detail.

[RICHARDBATTY]

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=397&stc=1 This is my theory of gravity which works with the previous one. I will be doing the inertia one next.

[ydoaPs]

can you explain it in words, please?

[RICHARDBATTY]

can you explain it in words, please?

Ecsqueeze me. Haven't the text boxes worked.

[ydoaPs]

a simple written explaination would help. just take a minute to post it. when looking at a chart graph thingy, it helps to know what you are looking at.

[RICHARDBATTY]

a simple written explaination would help. just take a minute to post it. when looking at a chart graph thingy, it helps to know what you are looking at.

I think I get what you mean. As Thales has commented before my writing skills are about equal to my skills in un aided flight. I only have a 96 IQ and I am unused to translating the crap in my head into english. I will have a go but it probably won't make much more sense than the original post. Did you mean for movement, gravity or both?

[Thales]

Again your abstract reasoning is impressive although I hate to be the bearer of bad news. Problems I see incude; the assumption that matter 'depletes' space and time, and this talk of space time 'flow', does this refer to the expansion? I ask because flow implies the entry/exit of new material from an area not the expansion of existing material. The idea I do like its that if atoms are fixed in size independent of this expanding space time then there would indeed be some sort of outward 'flow' of space time. I fail to see however the implications for gravity which is explained via the much simpler model of GR, that being space time curvature explains gravity.

 

There is also the assumption in the first picture that space time is expanding at the speed of light, a popular misconception. We do not know spacetimes true expansion rate but we do know it is variable (ie intergalactic expansion > galactic expansion). There exists some mean for this rate, the calculation of which is one of the leading problems facing cosmology. Red can also not travel in the opposite direction to a light pulse he emitted if he is travelling sub c.

 

If you care to provide some futher explainations I'll be more than happy to walk you through any inconsistancies. I hope I do not sound condecsending, just trying to give you a more accurate scientific viewpoint of your quite interesting ideas. Keep up the good work.

[RICHARDBATTY]

Thank you Thales for your help once more. I may have confused myself whilst writing this as it was difficult to explain, I will guarentee there will be inconsistancy in it. The problem of red not being able to travel in both directions is caused by the confusion of green and red occupying the same point in space time at the begining. I did it this way as I saw a similar thing in sr and it seemed appropriate to cover the same problem. The model allows for varied expansion provied each point expands at the same rate as we would all experience time pass at the same rate. What I did not do in the first diagram was use expansion from all points at the same time for simplicity. The terms I used changed to help the reader make the conection between what they normaly would think of as travel and the passage of time and my reasoning. Flow is the expansion of space time. The expansion was refered to as happening at the speed of light but it could be the speed of an athsmatic slug towing a parachute into a 50 mile an hour head wind as we would all experience time pass at a relative rate. As for gravity the idea was that if there was a delay in the expansion of space time at one point then relative to surrounding space an object would be closer to that point. If this proccess continued as it does in my opinion it would result in the appearance of a constant pull towards that point.

[RICHARDBATTY]

Does no body see any sense in this. If you extrapolate from the ideas I put forward you could explain just about every thing from the big bang to matter antimatter anialation.

[ydoaPs]

bad with english? could my good buddy Thales explain it for me?

[RICHARDBATTY]

Ok I'll have a go. The basic concept is that space time is the only dimension. It is all expanding but not from one point. Think of a balloon on which you have placed a dot. When the balloon expands it expands from all points at the same time and you can see this as the dot gets bigger but stays in the same place. In the diagram I set Green, Red and the light pulse off from the same point. This is not normaly possible but in sr the same idea was used to explain c being constant as veiwed from any frame and it both shows how my theory deals with this and reinforces the point in time thinking that is needed. The passage of time is created by space expanding through matter from the inside out when it is still. As matter begins to move it takes a path along the expanding time and catches up to some degree with time that occured localy. In the diagram Green remains at the center of local time as it expands. If we set the stop watch at 0 and wait one second the point of time that was at the center of green has expanded through green in all directions and is now a sphere surrounding green at one light second dstance from greens center. Green has seen one second pass. Do you get that bit. I think it should make sense as I have writen it but as I said I'm no Shakespear.

[Thales]

But space doesn't expand at the speed of light. Space expands at a rate sub c.

 

Time is better thought of as new combinations. Every time a new combination is 'actuated' time passes. A simplistic way of viewing the concept of entropy.

[RICHARDBATTY]

But space doesn't expand at the speed of light. Space expands at a rate sub c.

 

Time is better thought of as new combinations. Every time a new combination is 'actuated' time passes. A simplistic way of viewing the concept of entropy.

Whats entropy. How do we know space expands at sub c.

[ydoaPs]

entropy is the increasing disorder in a system.

 

you can measure the expansion rate, although it will be different if you measure in different places.

[RICHARDBATTY]

Do you mean we can measure the expansion of the distance between galaxies.

[ydoaPs]

yes. use a telescope, but the acceleration is different in different places. if you measure on earth and on jupiter, then the results will be different.

[RICHARDBATTY]

yes. use a telescope, but the acceleration is different in different places. if you measure on earth and on jupiter, then the results will be different.

Ok. Thats a different point to actual space time expansion. Its the spreading of matter and is acounted for with the combined space time gravity theorys. In my reasoning space time expands at the same rate everywhere. The gravitational delays in space time keep matter clustered so they do not move apart on a local scale. On a universal scale however all the galaxies are moving and the distances involved mean that gravity is diluted and distant objects seperate.

[ydoaPs]

it expands at the same rate, but the rate at which you observe it changes depending on your location.

[Thales]

It is space time expansion no matter which way you look at it. It is not matter moving through space it is space moving and taking matter with it. Similar to the idea of living on an inflating ballons skin you illuded to earlier.

 

Entropy is the fundamental property associated with time. For more infomation try searching for the second law of thermodynamics. It dictates the direction of the 'arrow' of time.

[Teotihuacan]

An interesting theory on the Expansion of Space/Time. And particularly in your handling of variables, being considered as absolutes, for purposes of "simplified" conceptual framework. Makes me wonder if indeed C= constant, or an arbitrary bench mark with which to make comparisons... as the increasingly convoluted logic of its annomalies also suggests, reminiscent of a Flat Earth Society.

 

The central problem of unified string theory, or whatever it is called now, being no explanation for this seemingly odd expansive force having not found a balance with gravity. That, and still looking for some strange and exotic "dark matter" to explain 2/3 of the undetected mass that this theory predicts.

 

Possibly one of our problems is in a unidimensional concept of Time. One of your discussions suggests two dimensions:

 

it takes a path along the expanding time and catches up to some degree with time that occured localy

 

Could this be a path (single ray) upon a plane of time, that intersects with the local time line, or a second dimension within the same "set"? One can imagine how the birth of Geometry greatly facilitated land ownership in Egypt, because before that, everything was measured by line of sight and direct perspective (or appeal to the Pharoh). Perhaps a similar set of theorms could be developed as "Chronometry".

 

I would like to suggest that a Super Symmetry may hold here as well. There being three dimensions of space, 3 dimensions of Time could be a starting point. We already do have 3 intuitive parts to time - past, present and future. And it is not that difficult to envision them as each, seperate dimensions.

 

Further, with an expanded time frame, each dimension may contain a finite or measurable amount of mass. Thus discovering those missing 2/3 of dark materia, as simply manifestations in other dimensions of time. And, if extra dimensions remain "curled up", this could also explain those unused portions, or the nature of past & future as if it were all contained in one moment.

 

Something that intrigued me in the general discussion about "Theory of Everything", was that gravity is the only force to act interdimensionally. Part of the explanation of why it is a "weak" force being that it bleeds off into other dimensions, affecting the whole rather than the parts.

 

So, I began to consider a gravitron's effect on time, as the interdimensional container of past/present/future matter(s). How, precisely, does gravity affect the actuality of an event in time? You seem to be approaching the same azimuth from the opposite direction, by proposing that gravity is a form of time distortion, with only the appearance of an attractive "force". Whatever that effect may be, if it could be noted, then a new understanding may emerge.

 

p.s. Hope I haven't thown this thread too far off kilter.

[RICHARDBATTY]

Relief. I think your getting it. When I said its like only one dimension it is but gives the effect of four. Did you understand how Red sees c as constant even though he set of at the same time coordinate as green. Sorry I may not make sense now I'm getting exited that someone understands. I've been carrying this round for years but didn't realy try to develope it as it seemed futile. The single ray bit is right. Time expands at your location through you but it forms a sphere, that sphere is all the same point in time. You can travel in any direction and you travel towards that point in time.

[ydoaPs]

How do we know space expands at sub c.

 

 

space DOES contract at the speed of light, but the expansion, at our reference point, it sub c.

 

Relief. I think your getting it. When I said its like only one dimension it is but gives the effect of four. Did you understand how Red sees c as constant even though he set of at the same time coordinate as green. Sorry I may not make sense now I'm getting exited that someone understands. I've been carrying this round for years but didn't realy try to develope it as it seemed futile. The single ray bit is right. Time expands at your location through you but it forms a sphere, that sphere is all the same point in time. You can travel in any direction and you travel towards that point in time.

 

a sphere in one dimension is 2 dots. you say any direction, but wiht only 1 dimension there are only two directions (ex. left and right)

[Teotihuacan]

No, I hadn't seen that in my comment, but appeared very confluent as soon as you pointed it out (as per your example). The arbitrary designation of a "constant" as a relational construct.

 

Yet in this sense, photons or electromagnetic waves may all travel at or near 300,000 km/sec, and be the fastest observable phenomenon to us, as such a constant. But, similar to Mach as a "constant" speed of sound on the order of 330 m/sec +/- medium density, it is really only a threshold. Sound does not travel any faster, even if the engine making it is.

 

I think in some ways we are all like the Blind Men who saw the Elephant. each with his own experience of a different aspect. We can begin to form a bigger picture by sharing our perspectives, or declare a stalemate by arguing over things we "know".

 

btw. Most of my reply to you was taken from some scribbling on a napkin, over three weeks ago. It is entirely serendipitous that it fits with your concepts. But again, many similar ideas seem to bubble to the surface in many minds, almost simulataneously.

 

Looking at your theory of Time Space and Movement, I'm wondering if you've seen Geoff Haselhurst's web page at http://www.spaceandmotion.com ?

 

In it, he relys heavily on a Wave Structure of Matter theory, first postulated by a physicist, Dr Milo Wolff. He states that essentially that:

Space (has substance), existing as a Wave-Medium.

Matter (exists) as a Spherical Standing Wave.

Forces are caused by a change in velocity of the spherical In-Waves.

 

Also, the intriguing quote, "Time is either identical to movement or is some affection of it." attributed to (Aristotle) and possibly an affirmation of your premii about movement and moment.

 

Perhaps a little redundant in his repetition, and waxing philosophical, but an interesting concept that seems to parallel yours in some ways. Worth a Look.

 

I always get a little exited about these seeming coincidences. To me it means I might be on the larger track, if others are thinking similarly. Not neccessarily that Truth is constant, but that it gives us a basis for alignment and comparison.

[RICHARDBATTY]

space DOES contract at the speed of light' date=' but the expansion, at our reference point, it sub c. Are you talking sr. Sorry I dont get it without context.

 

 

 

a sphere in one dimension is 2 dots. you say any direction, but wiht only 1 dimension there are only two directions (ex. left and right)[/quote'] Sorry, yes there are still 3 spacial dimension but what I was trying to put forward was the idea that time is the dimension that gives us the effect of 3d space.

Thanks for working this with me. Any argument I make is only in the interest of finding the truth. I want to get passed the known into the very basis of existance. The ideas around now all seem to work but fall at some point. There is no united point from which to understand the fact that things exist and this seems a good way to go. At least to me.

[RICHARDBATTY]

No' date=' I hadn't seen that in my comment, but appeared very confluent as soon as you pointed it out (as per your example). The arbitrary designation of a "constant" as a relational construct.

 

Yet in this sense, photons or electromagnetic waves may all travel at or near 300,000 km/sec, [b']and[/b] be the fastest observable phenomenon to us, as such a constant. But, similar to Mach as a "constant" speed of sound on the order of 330 m/sec +/- medium density, it is really only a threshold. Sound does not travel any faster, even if the engine making it is.

 

I think in some ways we are all like the Blind Men who saw the Elephant. each with his own experience of a different aspect. We can begin to form a bigger picture by sharing our perspectives, or declare a stalemate by arguing over things we "know".

 

btw. Most of my reply to you was taken from some scribbling on a napkin, over three weeks ago. It is entirely serendipitous that it fits with your concepts. But again, many similar ideas seem to bubble to the surface in many minds, almost simulataneously.

 

Looking at your theory of Time Space and Movement, I'm wondering if you've seen Geoff Haselhurst's web page at http://www.spaceandmotion.com ?

 

In it, he relys heavily on a Wave Structure of Matter theory, first postulated by a physicist, Dr Milo Wolff. He states that essentially that:

Space (has substance), existing as a Wave-Medium.

Matter (exists) as a Spherical Standing Wave.

Forces are caused by a change in velocity of the spherical In-Waves.

 

Also, the intriguing quote, "Time is either identical to movement or is some affection of it." attributed to (Aristotle) and possibly an affirmation of your premii about movement and moment.

 

Perhaps a little redundant in his repetition, and waxing philosophical, but an interesting concept that seems to parallel yours in some ways. Worth a Look.

 

I always get a little exited about these seeming coincidences. To me it means I might be on the larger track, if others are thinking similarly. Not neccessarily that Truth is constant, but that it gives us a basis for alignment and comparison.

As I have said before I'm not well educated so I appologise in advance if I apear to ignore or misunderstand points you make. I had a look at the site you posted and I see the similarity. Maybe I should also have remained consious in history lessons but I only seem to be able to look forward. Are you saying that you have had thoughts along similar lines (with the napkin) or just an odd point. The problem of two objects occuring at the same point in space time is that the same point in time goes in all directions so if the two objects go in different directions then they would still occupy the same point in time. If one object moves it occupys the point in time that is the past for the still object and vice versa. The speed c is the limit because it is 0 time. At this point no time passes neither forward or back and you can't continue accelerating unless time passes. In the real world two objects don't occupy the same point so it is not relevant but demonstrates the point well. The 0 point at c in my opinion is what makes anti matter possible as if the matter no longer has an outward flow of time an inward flow could now be impossed. Best leave that because it goes into yet another area of my theory, the big woosh flash crunch bang fizz spread. Do you see the quantum effect in two objects occupying the same space.