what is time?

[Mordred]

Mass is resistance to inertia. That isn't hard to define. When you add energy to a system it gains a higher resistance to inertia.

mass definition."

 

In physics, the property of matter that measures its resistance to acceleration."

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

 

all forms of energy has a resistance to acceleration or inertia

Please note the different categories of mass in that link

Edited February 4, 2015 by Mordred

[Strange]

But why are you not telling me the effect of the Gravitational Velocity on all of us and our age ?

 

What does "gravitational velocity" mean?

 

You know at what speed we are hurtling through Space ?

 

It depends what you measure it relative to. There is no absolute velocity or time.

 

Distance to the Center of Gravity of the Universe

 

There is no centre of the universe.

 

including the Cern Lab which tracks all particles

 

They don't track all particles. (They have enough trouble just tracking the ones they generate!)

 

Now tell me WHAT IS MASS ?

 

That is nothing to do with you claim that there is absolute time.

[swansont]

Yes, I read it.

 

I have heard of this earlier too.

 

Can you tell me what does this mean and what are the Conclusions.

 

There is no paradox.

Agreed, there is no paradox. We have a number of threads which discuss it.

 

There's also no absolute time. Again, discussion can be found (or begun) in some other thread.

[Commander]

 

 

There is no centre of the universe.

 

 

 

For everything there is a center of gravity including every Particle !

 

Why you say Universe does not have a center of Gravity ?

[Strange]

Why you say Universe does not have a center of Gravity ?

 

Because that is what our current best theories tell us.

[StringJunky]

 

For everything there is a center of gravity including every Particle !

 

Why you say Universe does not have a center of Gravity ?

This image is a simulation of the universe at the largest scale and is reckoned to be the same all over; isotropic and homogenous. Where would the centre of gravity be in this scenario, if one existed?

 

[dethfire]

Two good discussions on time

http://users.wfu.edu/brehme/time.htm

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-is-time.617345/

[Commander]

 

Because that is what our current best theories tell us.

What exactly they tell you ?

 

Can you summarize please !

This image is a simulation of the universe at the largest scale and is reckoned to be the same all over; isotropic and homogenous. Where would the centre of gravity be in this scenario, if one existed?

 

 

Then tell me whether this can arise from Bigbang ?

 

First tell me whether Big Biang is right or wrong !

 

Let us go one by one.

 

Also this simulation has been created how and why it should relate to the Reality ?

 

If you look at the Universe there is more Space than Matter and this picture is not bearing that out.

 

This is certainly a contrived depiction with adjusted scales and we must know all parameters.

 

It does not cover the entire Universe too as can be easily seen in the edges which are truncated.

 

Please give the entire picture in true scale.

[Mordred]

The answer is yes that simulation does relate to reality, it tests our models. Using our models allowed us to show how galaxies formed. With the correct ratio of metals etc in the large scale clusters.

 

When you look at the technical details its incredibly impressive.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0504097

 

http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/millennium/

[StringJunky]

...Then tell me whether this can arise from Bigbang ?

 

First tell me whether Big Biang is right or wrong !

 

Let us go one by one.

 

Also this simulation has been created how and why it should relate to the Reality ?

 

If you look at the Universe there is more Space than Matter and this picture is not bearing that out.

 

This is certainly a contrived depiction with adjusted scales and we must know all parameters.

The formation of the filamentous nature of the universe is modelled, like this following series, in a section about 140 million light years cubed. The bigger the scale the more stuffed with matter it appears; the gaps between the filaments are actually humungous if you can visualise it in 3D. There are animations of it in this link and more information if you care to look.

 

 

 

It does not cover the entire Universe too as can be easily seen in the edges which are truncated.

 

Please give the entire picture in true scale.

The Lambda Cold Dark Matter Model suggests that this is how the universe is distributed in all directions. If you are asking what the universe looks like from some hypothetical external birds eye view of its entirety in terms of shape then I don't think scientists have sufficient data to extrapolate that to any high degree of confidence. This is a wide-angle sky survey image.

 

Edited February 7, 2015 by StringJunky

[Strange]

What exactly they tell you ?

 

Can you summarize please !

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

 

Then tell me whether this can arise from Bigbang ?

 

Yes.

 

First tell me whether Big Biang is right or wrong !

 

It is consistent with all the evidence and is, therefore, the best theory we currently have (which is the nearest you can get to "right" in science).

 

It does not cover the entire Universe too as can be easily seen in the edges which are truncated.

Please give the entire picture in true scale.

 

 

You want a life-size representation of the entire universe? Look around you!

[Commander]

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

 

 

Yes.

 

 

It is consistent with all the evidence and is, therefore, the best theory we currently have (which is the nearest you can get to "right" in science).

 

 

You want a life-size representation of the entire universe? Look around you!

 

What is Big Bang ? What happened ?

[Strange]

 

What is Big Bang ? What happened ?

 

The universe was hot and dense. Then it got less dense and cooled. Initially it was so dense that photons couldn't travel any distance without being absorbed by electrons. Eventually it cooled and expanded enough that photons were free to travel (that is the CMB). It continued to expand and cool. Then clouds of gas started to collapse under their own weight and formed stars and galaxies.

 

In a nutshell.

[Commander]

 

The universe was hot and dense. Then it got less dense and cooled. Initially it was so dense that photons couldn't travel any distance without being absorbed by electrons. Eventually it cooled and expanded enough that photons were free to travel (that is the CMB). It continued to expand and cool. Then clouds of gas started to collapse under their own weight and formed stars and galaxies.

 

In a nutshell.

Hi,

 

Thanks.

 

However I am unable to understand all that is supposed to have happened.

 

It might have all happened as you have narrated.

 

However that Hot and Dense state need not be at some starting point and indicate nothing else was before that.

 

The Universe obviously was before that in whatever form and from that time has come to our Current Time and State of affairs.

 

Now it is following its own behaviour pattern and at some future might converge back to that state again.

 

Some of those words you have used such as Dense, Hot, Cooled , Own Weight , Gas, Photon, Absorbed etc need to be more accurately understood.

 

If Gravity is indeed a Force acting between all masses of matter [the mass itself has different values like inertial mass and gravitational mass etc] and if E = mc² is indeed a valid Equation then all matter can eventually turn into Energy and Vice Versa.

 

I don't know whether or how this Equation E = mc² has been proved or verified or simply assumed to be true.

 

However there may be nothing called Inertial mass at all and mass may be always a varying value dependent on its Speed of travel through Space.

 

That is , every mass must gravitate towards the Rest of the masses and as Galileo proved it accelerates at the Square of Time Rate [ proportional to t² ] and inverse square of the distance from the attracting mass [rest of the matter].

 

Speed can thus increase or decrease depending on the direction of travel - Matter to Energy or Energy to Matter.

 

In between there is a range of velocity during which a kind of steady state situation is presented with and matter is what we perceive as the inertial mass [some permanent character of the substance say a stone , metal or any entity] .

 

The Entire surrounding of the Wholesome Entity such as Moon, Earth, Planet, Sun or Galaxy as a whole tend to move altogether and therefore gravitate together with the same speed. However within that entity events of gravitation of sub-entities can occur such as a particle gravitating towards its nucleus, or an apple falling from a tree or moon falling towards the earth etc without affecting the otherwise overall motion of that entity.

 

Perhaps matter thus converges to a hot dense state like a pre-bigbang state.

 

At such a center the Gravity pulls apart in all direction and launches out the Energy Stream into Space literally decimating the matter by an unknown phenomenon.

 

This phenomenon appears to be an ongoing process.

[Strange]

However I am unable to understand all that is supposed to have happened.

 

Not surprising. Neither am I. It is a very complex subject.

 

However that Hot and Dense state need not be at some starting point and indicate nothing else was before that.

 

True. There is a lot of shoddy journalism talking about "creation of the universe" but we have no evidence or understanding of what happened before this early hot dense state.

 

Now it is following its own behaviour pattern and at some future might converge back to that state again.

 

That used to be the general view. But now it seems that expansion is accelerating so it may not slow down and collapse again.

 

Some of those words you have used such as Dense, Hot, Cooled , Own Weight , Gas, Photon, Absorbed etc need to be more accurately understood.

 

There is a lot to learn. People here can help. And there is a lot of information online.

 

I don't know whether or how this Equation E = mc² has been proved or verified or simply assumed to be true.

 

It was derived theoretically and (because this is science) has been tested experimentally.

 

However there may be nothing called Inertial mass at all and mass may be always a varying value dependent on its Speed of travel through Space.

 

Well, it is trivial to prove there is inertial mass. Stand next to a large ship floating in the docks and push it. If there were no inertial mass, you would easily make it move.

[Mordred]

I believe the range of questions your asking can best be answered not on a forum specifically but with some reading material. Look at my signature use the wikidot link. I recommend starting with the misconceptions section.

 

Then read the two articles under site links ( yes I wrote those two with assistance)

 

Then you will see a section on textbook style articles.

 

These articles I chose are all mainstream science I keep alternative articles on a seperate location.

 

Feel free to ask questions on any of the material. This material is also posted in the pinned thread on the Astronomy forum Cosmo basics. I would look over the entire pinned thread good info there

 

 

My link has been updated a bit since my post there with a few new articles.

Another excellent resource is Ned Wright's tutorial

 

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

Edited February 8, 2015 by Mordred

[Commander]

Hi,

 

Thanks.

 

However I am unable to understand all that is supposed to have happened.

 

It might have all happened as you have narrated.

 

However that Hot and Dense state need not be at some starting point and indicate nothing else was before that.

 

The Universe obviously was before that in whatever form and from that time has come to our Current Time and State of affairs.

 

Now it is following its own behaviour pattern and at some future might converge back to that state again.

 

Some of those words you have used such as Dense, Hot, Cooled , Own Weight , Gas, Photon, Absorbed etc need to be more accurately understood.

 

If Gravity is indeed a Force acting between all masses of matter [the mass itself has different values like inertial mass and gravitational mass etc] and if E = mc² is indeed a valid Equation then all matter can eventually turn into Energy and Vice Versa.

 

I don't know whether or how this Equation E = mc² has been proved or verified or simply assumed to be true.

 

However there may be nothing called Inertial mass at all and mass may be always a varying value dependent on its Speed of travel through Space.

 

That is , every mass must gravitate towards the Rest of the masses and as Galileo proved it accelerates at the Square of Time Rate [ proportional to t² ] and inverse square of the distance from the attracting mass [rest of the matter].

 

Speed can thus increase or decrease depending on the direction of travel - Matter to Energy or Energy to Matter.

 

In between there is a range of velocity during which a kind of steady state situation is presented with and matter is what we perceive as the inertial mass [some permanent character of the substance say a stone , metal or any entity] .

 

The Entire surrounding of the Wholesome Entity such as Moon, Earth, Planet, Sun or Galaxy as a whole tend to move altogether and therefore gravitate together with the same speed. However within that entity events of gravitation of sub-entities can occur such as a particle gravitating towards its nucleus, or an apple falling from a tree or moon falling towards the earth etc without affecting the otherwise overall motion of that entity.

 

Perhaps matter thus converges to a hot dense state like a pre-bigbang state.

 

At such a center the Gravity pulls apart in all direction and launches out the Energy Stream into Space literally decimating the matter by an unknown phenomenon.

 

This phenomenon appears to be an ongoing process.

 

Call it the Walker's Model of the Universe !

 

Expansion and Compaction at the same time.

 

If the Hubbles Telescope is accelerating towards the Center obviously it will see everything else expanding. No need for Red Shift Blue Shift interpretation.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Commander

[Strange]

If the Hubbles Telescope is accelerating towards the Center obviously it will see everything else expanding. No need for Red Shift Blue Shift interpretation.

 

If our telescopes were accelerating towrds some point in the universe, then we would see blue shift in that direction and redshift in the opposite direction (and no shift at right angles). So the Walker's Model doesn't work.

[Commander]

This red shift blue shift is also another flimsy theory from which many deductions are drawn !

 

Has it taken into consideration the telescope's velocity too ?

 

Talking about a shift in wavelength when such distances are involved seems strange.

 

What about more than 360 degree shift ? Nobody thought of that ?

[Strange]

This red shift blue shift is also another flimsy theory from which many deductions are drawn !

 

We see a both red shift and blue shift in nearby galaxies showing that they are moving towards or away from us, as they move through space.

 

Beyond a certain distance we see only red shift (in all directions) showing that galaxies are being moved away from us by expansion of space.

 

Has it taken into consideration the telescope's velocity too ?

 

The telescopse velocity realtive to what? We are measuring the velocities of the galaxies relativbe to us; therefore the telscope is stationary (relative to us).

 

Talking about a shift in wavelength when such distances are involved seems strange.

 

I don't know why: spectroscopy allows us to measure the wavelength of light very accurately. Why would it matter what the distances are. Light is light.

 

What about more than 360 degree shift ? Nobody thought of that ?

 

360 degree shift in what?

[Commander]

 

We see a both red shift and blue shift in nearby galaxies showing that they are moving towards or away from us, as they move through space.

 

Beyond a certain distance we see only red shift (in all directions) showing that galaxies are being moved away from us by expansion of space.

 

 

The telescopse velocity realtive to what? We are measuring the velocities of the galaxies relativbe to us; therefore the telscope is stationary (relative to us).

 

 

I don't know why: spectroscopy allows us to measure the wavelength of light very accurately. Why would it matter what the distances are. Light is light.

 

 

360 degree shift in what?

one full wave length shift = 360 degree phase shift

Edited February 9, 2015 by Commander

[Strange]

one full wave length shuft = 360 degree phase shift

 

But red/blue shift is caused by wavelengths getting longer or shorter (changes in frequency, if you prefer), not by changes in phase.

[Captainzen]

This thread just proves a point I made in my first post here under Quantum Physics. That TIME is nothing more than Man's invention of a measure just like distance. And time dilation (like that of GPS) is a misconception and an error in the math.

[Strange]

And time dilation (like that of GPS) is a misconception and an error in the math.

 

Could you show us exactly where that error in the math is?

 

And can you explain how, if the math is wrong, GPS works?

 

And, as quantum theory, and therefore modern electronics, includes relativity how is it that the transistors in your computer work?

 

That is the trouble with trying to wave away science: it still works.

[DimaMazin]

Time is a standard of simultaneity of quantities of motions.