Jump to content

Is gravity = time?


servantx
 Share

Recommended Posts

I STILL DON;T GET IT. , BUT WHATEVER.

Hawking. The name is Stephen Hawking, not "Hawkins" - unless you know of another physicist who happens to be named Stephen Hawkins.

 

Item #7 on the Crackpot Index is a reference to the posts on the Internet and/or unsolicited emails/letters to physicists from people who are proposing their off-the-wall "theory" and make reference to "Stephen Hawkins".

 

Here's the entire Crackpot Index:

 

The Crackpot Index

 

John Baez

 

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:

 

A -5 point starting credit.

 

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

 

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

 

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

 

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

 

5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

 

5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

 

5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".

 

10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

 

10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

 

10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)

 

10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

 

10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

 

10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.

 

10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

 

10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

 

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

 

10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

 

10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".

 

20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)

 

20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

 

20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

 

20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

 

20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

 

20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)

 

20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.

 

20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".

 

20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".

 

30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)

 

30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

 

30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).

 

30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.

 

40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

 

40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

 

40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

 

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

 

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

© 1998 John Baez

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Darby:

 

How about a debunker index. Because every time I make a prediction, you ridicule it, and when it comes true you claim it was obvious. OK so when food runs out. Which is my main prediction. What will you do?

 

If I like "accidentally" hit my car horn and it got stuck as we follow a group of the Hell's Angels motorcycle gang on the interstate highway. Darby would say "everything is fine, you got nothing to worry about!"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that situation, Darby would say (everything is fine, you got nothing to worry about) Because every possible outcome of that situation you are dead, An earthquake erupts in the middle of the road, They (Hells Angels) kill you, A tornado drops down, They kill you, You are abducted by aliens and taken to a dark secluded place of exile in the most distant place in space, They track you down and kill you, So you really have nothing to worry about because you are dead, Inevitably dead, relax, Your dead. :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, based on your crackpot theory...

 

It was a crackpot who first suggested the earth was not the center of the universe. AND, it was a crackpot who suggessted (how silly) that the Earth was round. AND, it was a crackpot who suggested that humans evolved and were not "made". AND likewise, it was a crackpot who suggested there was this thing called a sub-conscious. ALL CRACKPOTS!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forget ©~2 Santilli Theorem 1.4.2.

 

If Einstein, Darwin, and Hawking were locked in an argument, who do you thing would be the most convincing??

none of above!

but this one:

 

But remember that this is the only way to TT/ Forget Einstein or continue ignoring the 9 catastrophic inconsistencies that prevent Time Travel in this particular Time Frame of this Timeline!!!

 

 

Quoted:

 

Organized Scientific Corruption on Einstein

 

Gravitation

 

An indication of the greatness of Albert Einstein is that he repeatedly expressedserious doubts on his gravitational theory, with particular reference to the r.h.s. of the field equations. By comparison, organized interests on Einstein have essentially suppressed any serious scientific process in the field via the abuse of academic credibility and public funds.

 

On one side, authoritative criticisms on Einstein gravitation (published in serious refereed journals around the world) have increased exponentially during the 20-th century. On the other side, said organized interests have completely ignored these qualified dissident views, let alone address and disprove them also in refereed journals as required by scientific ethics and accountability.

 

By recalling that the latter behavior is generally perpetrated under public financial support, we see the emergence of one of the most ascientific scenario in

 

scientific history because, jointly with the lack of serious scientific work due to lack of dismissal of catastrophic inconsistencies, we have the violation of U. S.

 

Federal Laws due to transparent misuse of public funds.

 

In view of the above, Santilli suggests the conduction of a senatorial investigation on all public funds spend for research in gravitation during the past fifty years. In the event this is not possible due to potential backing by (some) politicians to their academic brothers, Santilli recommends the filing of class actions in U. S. Federal Court against federal funding agencies, such as the National

 

Science Foundation and the Department of Energy, jointly with representative institutions abusing public funds without proper scientific process.

 

At any rate, the current condition of research in gravitation should not be permitted to continued by any civilized society, while such a condition will continue

 

indefinitely in the absence of a senatorial and/or judicial intervention due to the power and capillary organization of said interests on Einstein.

 

To begin some indication on the gravity of the problem, it should be indicated that the rejections of dissident papers on Einstein gravitation by orthodox technical

 

journals the world over can only be qualified as being shameful for the physics community, because perpetrated without any serious objection or disproof, thus

 

confirming the existence of an organized corruption on Einstein gravitation (see documentations in the footnotes of Volume IV).

 

Some of the rejections are done with extreme studious professionalism in implementing what amount to a real scientific crime. For instance, the journals of

 

72 RUGGERO MARIA SANTILLI the America Physical Society (APS) have issued a 'final rejection' for Santilli's

 

dissident papers. Instead, they have issued ordinary rejections that, per APS statute, allow resubmissions. The anti-scientific aspect is that such rejections are continued for years and years for the studious intent of tiring the author (see also documentations in the footnotes of Volume IV).

 

The rejections of dissident papers on Einstein doctrines by the journals controlled by the British Institute of Physics (IOP) are even more insidious, because perpetrated with a higher degrees of sophistication in opposing undesired physical knowledge while dreaming to portray the opposite.

 

The rejections of dissident papers on Einstein doctrines by orthodox journals in France, Italy, Sweden, and other countries can only be dubbed as being pathetic by comparison with the preceding ones because expressing in a transparent way their strictly political and nonscientific motivation.

 

The above suppression of due scientific process establishes beyond credible doubt that research in gravitation are based on academic power and political schemes all over the world, and definitely not on scientific truth. Whether intentional or not, this behavior clearly serves organized, academic, financial and ethnic interests on Einsteinian doctrines. Other views are left to naive persons or accomplices.

 

It is then necessary to give some indication of other forms of 'dismissals' by said organized interests of the inconsistencies of Einstein's gravitation. As a general rule, said interests have no credible technical argument to oppose the catastrophic inconsistencies here considered, all published in refereed journals (of which Santilli is not an editor). Consequently, said organized interests are left with equivocal attempts to discredit Santilli, such as the dubbing of doing 'fringe science' by Wikipedia (while studies ignoring the catastrophic inconsistencies are serious science in Wikipedia view).

 

Others, such as Dimitri Rabounski, retort to other forms of dismissal beyond credibility. In fact, following the appearance of paper [111], Rabounski released in the internet a 'Review of the paper Inconsistencies of general relativity by R. M. Santilli' in which he claims that 'Santilli is a nuclear physicist' (sic!), the evident

 

dream being to suggest that santilli is not qualified to discuss mathematically advanced issues based on the Riemannian geometry.

 

In reality, far from being a nuclear physicist,Santilli is an applied mathematician who has been a member of the Department of Mathematics at Harvard University, as everybody can see by inspecting Santilli's CV available in the internet following an easy search at google.com. Hence, Santilli is indeed fully qualified to identify inconsistencies of Einstein gravitation.

 

Following these inspiring introductory lines, Rabounski passes to truly ephemeraltouches of the inconsistencies, claiming misrepresentations of the theory by Santilli,

 

yet by carefully avoiding the addressing of the main ones, such as the impossibility of representing free fall with curvature, the impossibility to predict the same numbers under the same conditions at different times due to the noncanonical structure of the theory, etc. Hence, Rabounski 'objections' to the catastrophic inconsistencies of Einstein gravitation identified by Santilli are purely political and without any substantive scientific content.

 

On the pseudo-technical side, the reader in good faith will be amused to know a seemingly technical rebuttal by Eduardo A. Notte-Cuello and Waldyr A. Rodrigues, jr., who recently released a 'paper' in the arXiv with an extensive and detailed review of the derivation of the Freud identity, something well known to experts, and conclude with the statement

 

In this paper we proved that, contrary to the claims in [29,30] (our references [95,110) there is no incompatibility from the mathematical point of view between the Freud identity and the Einstein-Hilbert field equations of GR.

 

The 'paper' then passes to claim of rebuttal of other inconsistencies of Einstein gravitation due to problems with conservation laws, that have not been addressed

 

by Santilli due to the large dissident literature by Yilmaz and numerous other authors.

 

The evident dream by Notte-Cuelo and Rodrigues is that of discrediting the inconsistencies of general relativity identified by Santilli, this time, with a smokescreen

 

of mathematics. in fact, the above quoted 'main scope' of the 'paper' is scientifically vacuous because every graduate student in physics knows that, for a body with non-null electromagnetic fields, Einstein's field equations do have a tensor source in the r.h.s, Eq. (1.4.2), in which case there is indeed no mathematical inconsistency between the field equations and the Freud identity as stated in

 

Theorem 1.4.2.

 

However, in their detailed derivation of the Freud identity by Notte-Cuelo and Rodrigues carefully avoids quoting, let alone reviewing, Rund [26] main result, namely, that the tensor in the r.h.s. of the Freud identity is of first order in magnitude. By comparison, the tensor in the r.h.s. of Eqs. (1.4.2) is of lilliputian value. Hence, we have the physical inconsistencies between Einstein gravitation and the Freud identity of Theorem 1.4.2.

 

The collapse of scientific value of the 'paper' by Notte-Cuelo and Rodrigues is then given by Einstein's gravitation for bodies with null charge and null magnetic

 

moments for which it is prohibited to put any tensor in the r.h.s. of the field equations, in which Notte-Cuelo and Rodrigues mimic lack of knowledge, in which case we have a mathematical and physical incompatibility of Einstein

 

gravitation with the Freud identity.

 

The purely political character of the 'paper' by Notte-Cuelo and Rodrigues emerges when one notes that, in the event these authors did not read carefully Refs. [95,110], Santilli did notified them of the above clarifications, but, as typically the case in the field, the clarifications were ignored in the arXiv upload

 

74 RUGGERO MARIA SANTILLI (Rodrigues was then terminated as editor of Algebras, Groups and Geometries for unethical conduct in this and other cases).

 

The intellectual dishonestly emerges rather forcefully from the fact that Santilli studies (such as paper [110]) present nine different theorems of catastrophic inconsistencies of Einstein gravitation, each one being sufficient to depenn Einstein gravitation from the list of serious physical theories. Notte-Cuelo and Rodrigues

 

do quote Theorem 1.4.2 based on the Freud identity, but carefully avoid the quotation of the other eight theorems of catastrophic inconsistencies.

 

Whether intentional or not, the dishonest implication that may be perceived by the naive or uneducated reader of Notte-Cuelo and Rodrigues arXiv paper on the Freud identity is that 'Santilli theorem 1.4.2 is wrong and, therefore, Einstein gravitation is correct,' while in the scientific reality, even assuming that Theorem 1.4.2 might be wrong (contrary to all serious evidence), Einstein gravitation

 

remains afflicted by eight remaining theorems of catastrophic inconsistencies.

 

It is hoped the above cases illustrate the reason for Santilli suggestions to have senatorial investigations or judicial proceedings on research in gravitation. In

 

fact, it is absolutely certain that, when under oath in front of a jury, Rabounski would have indeed documented himself before venturing that Santilli is a 'nuclear

 

physicist,' and, in front of a jury for judicial proceedings, Notte-Cuelo and Rodrigues vociferous posturing would turn into anguish and positively they would state that their results confirm fully, rather than dismiss, Santilli Theorem 1.4.2.

 

end quoted

 

Get the Pdf docs

 

Here:

 

Quoting RMT in the Other Timeline when i post this one to calculate divergence:

 

RECALL YOU HERETIC!!!

 

DO NOT QUESTION SAINT ALBERT!!!

 

EVERYTHING HE MADE UP AS HE WENT ALONG IS TRUE!!!

 

RMT

 

"I want you to understand me" - Ich Will (I Want), Rammstein - 2001

:D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Forget ©~2 Santilli Theorem 1.4.2.

 

On one side, authoritative criticisms on Einstein gravitation (published in serious refereed journals around the world) have increased exponentially during the 20-th century. On the other side, said organized interests have completely ignored these qualified dissident views, let alone address and disprove them also in refereed journals as required by scientific ethics and accountability.

 

The TRUTH is that if you overthrew Einstein, most scientists would be only too pleased to hear about it. The trouble is that most 'rival' theories do nothing of the sort....and 99% do not even contain any maths but just a load of 'Einstein was wrong' followed by a bunch of meaningless verbiage.

 

Einstein is still in his revered place for the very simple reason that his theory makes testable predictions that work, and not because there's some cosmic conspiracy to keep him there. Any theory that replaces Einstein will have to not only pass the same predictive tests...but new ones too. Don't be at all surprised if the scientific community simply yawn if you can't !

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is time and gravity related, are they the same thing?

 

Time in different planets are different.

 

Even the time on space station is different to time on earth.

 

Posting messages like this, information in cyberspace is travelling in near light speed if the cables are optical fibre, then the data transfer in the speed of light.

 

Geographical coordination of the server storage on earth is also important. Specially some places has higher magnetic field thant the others.

 

It should be achievable in theory...

 

What is your thoughts?

 

It is quite possible time could be described as an acceleration vector; in that respect, time and gravity are both two forms of the same underlying phenomenon. Mass tells space-time how to curve and space-time tells mass how to move.

 

The orthogonal[to the three space dimensions] time vector, is then perceived to be a uniform omnidirectional gradient in the three space dimensions... AKA it is the gravitational force as well as being the steady march of time, also known the fourth 'temporal' dimension.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Forget ©~2 Santilli Theorem 1.4.2.

 

In this paper we proved that, contrary to the claims in [29,30] (our references [95,110) there is no incompatibility from the mathematical point of view between the Freud identity and the Einstein-Hilbert field equations of GR.

 

Lol ! I was just starting to wonder why the papers got rejected...until I came across that bit. I can well imagine any journal editor rasing his eyes to heaven and muttering 'why do they waste my time with this BS ?' before tossing the paper in the bin.

 

Seriously.....anyone who thinks there's a connection between Freud's Identity Theory and General Relativity needs to lay off the magic mushroom !

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Forget ©~2 Santilli Theorem 1.4.2.

 

As for 'mathematical compatibility'.....what on earth is such a term supposed to mean ?? There are many examples of the same maths being used to describe widely different things. Some sea shells contain a Fermat spiral in their structure....and so do many spiral galaxies. Nobody has yet written a scientific paper to say that sea shells and galaxies are the same thing !!

 

It all kinda smacks of arguing that a donut is the same as a tea cup, as lets face it they are topologically equivalent. Lol.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Twighlight,

 

Did you edit your post recently to provided this answer with E=mc^2 formula?

 

That reply wasn't like that a few weeks ago when I first wrote that down in replies to Pamela.

 

Please do not edit posts but start new post if you have new comments on this thread. Thank you for your corporation.

 

Hmm, it is time and energy that are directly related, by the famous E=MC^2

 

Basically, one can consider the speed of light as being 'the speed of time'. If light travelled faster.....time would run more quickly. So it's just as well light doesn't travel instantly or the universe would have been over in a millisecond.

 

Gravity is indirectly related, in that gravity bends space, and thus time too. The best way to look at it is that gravity stretches space ( in 3 dimensions ) near massive objects......this stretching makes space act as if the relative distance between points in space is more than in an area further from the massive object. This means light takes longer to travel that distance.....which effectively means a slowing of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please do not lie, Twighlight.

 

Your post did not give any answer related to E=MC^2 at the beginning of this thread until I wrote the entire equation.

 

It is an "add-on" answer after you have seen the equation. You have modified your post and make it like you have been answering it. Your post was not like that nor mention anything about E=MC^2 during the first week of this thread. It was "edited" and I am 100% sure about.

 

Do you want me to check the logs of your last log-ins with the moderators?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please do not lie, Twighlight.

 

Your post did not give any answer related to E=MC^2 at the beginning of this thread until I wrote the entire equation.

 

It is an "add-on" answer after you have seen the equation. You have modified your post and make it like you have been answering it. Your post was not like that nor mention anything about E=MC^2 during the first week of this thread. It was "edited" and I am 100% sure about.

 

Do you want me to check the logs of your last log-ins with the moderators?

 

 

Ah yes...you got me there. Yes, it was all a vast right wing conspiracy by the New World Order, in an attempt to facilitate the Lizardan takeover of Earth on behalf of Dave Kinky, who is really secretly working for Darth Vader ( yes, he really exists ) and John Titor Enterprises.....so that Hypercapitalism can be introduced across the galaxy and all the working minions can make masses of money on behalf of the Lords Of Creation, of whom I am now one after learning the special Masonic handshake.

 

Well....that's the polite response.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah yes...you got me there. Yes, it was all a vast right wing conspiracy by the New World Order, in an attempt to facilitate the Lizardan takeover of Earth on behalf of Dave Kinky, who is really secretly working for Darth Vader ( yes, he really exists ) and John Titor Enterprises.....so that Hypercapitalism can be introduced across the galaxy and all the working minions can make masses of money on behalf of the Lords Of Creation, of whom I am now one after learning the special Masonic handshake.

 

Well....that's the polite response.

What degree are you, Freemason member of Illuminati?

 

Did the "Grand Master" of the majestic lodge send you here or you come here by your own will?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your post did not give any answer related to E=MC^2 at the beginning of this thread until I wrote the entire equation.

 

It is an "add-on" answer after you have seen the equation. You have modified your post and make it like you have been answering it. Your post was not like that nor mention anything about E=MC^2 during the first week of this thread. It was "edited" and I am 100% sure about.

 

You are 100% wrong. It is plain for all to see that my post existed a full 4 days before your 'equation'. I am at a complete loss to see what difference it makes anyway....as I was merely stating the blindingly obvious. E=MC^2 ( and it's meaning in relation to time ) is not exactly some esoteric formula known only to the Illuminati.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

If all motion stopped in the universe, would there be such a thing as time?

 

(the measurement).

 

;)

 

I know alot of people think about planetary bodies singularly when thinking of the effects of a large body, though wouldn't galaxies collectively moving be a more unified factor?

 

Doesn't cannibalistic galaxies show this?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Motion should be irrelevant to the passage of time. All points in time are simultaneous as believed by Einstein the past present and future. Gravity slows the perceived passage of time for objects with mass which is why I believe we experience time. As for a photon which has no mass, its point of departure and arrival from its emitted source are simultaneous to the photons perspective but light is bent by gravity which is an effect on space-time caused by an object with mass. So light and time alike have their paths bent and elongated in the presence of gravity. Also the constant c corresponds to the speed limit of time. If you were to travel at the speed of c, photons around you would float motionless in a fixed position in space and time due to you moving at a constant rate with them, much like if you were to run at the same speed as a bullet fired. You could easily reach over pluck the bullet from the air because it would appear motionless in relation to your velocity.

 

My point here is that time and space are connected. For motion to stop, time should also stop if you are moving at the speed of c. Also there is a Bose-Einstein Condensate which is so cold that a beam of light can be slowed down almost to a complete stop.

 

I hope this has helped, I've tried not to ramble too much

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying a photon has no mass for creating accurate expressions, or that indeed, no matter how micro the scale in the technological future - it's mass will always reside for what we understand as "zero"? Absolute nothing?

 

That's interesting, I can understand that for a wave, however doesn't a particle have a theorectical x, y, z sphereical coordinate?

 

It makes sense that in the sense I may or any massive object may pass through it, though is it not the act of displacement, otherwise it would make sense that something with no mass - the particle should be able to travel through dense mass, which we know light cannot.

 

Photon-photon collision?

 

If a photon, or wave of light had no visual quality....what other "massless" particles are floating around which we have no idea?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying a photon has no mass for creating accurate expressions, or that indeed, no matter how micro the scale in the technological future - it's mass will always reside for what we understand as "zero"? Absolute nothing?

 

That's interesting, I can understand that for a wave, however doesn't a particle have a theorectical x, y, z sphereical coordinate?

 

Strictly speaking, the term is 'rest mass'. Which for a photon is zero.

 

Because photons have no charge ( though some speculate it may exist but be extremely small ) this means the entire energy of a photon is energy of motion.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So something with zero resting mass could be said to be "non-physical"?

 

How is something non-physical subject to motion?

Photons are certainly physical, they just don't have mass. To put it another way...mass is what happens when you bring a photon to rest, for example if it hits another photon. If there was some way you could slow down a photon.....it would start to gain mass as it slowed. This is the inverse of objects gaining mass as they approach the speed of light......it is the opposite side of the same equation.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That almost makes a theorectical thing I've read about another form of human evolution almost make sense...in terms of conscious thought, etc.

 

On a side note though, that plays into a very larger thing I've 'oft wondered.

 

Even if this is our first experience of perceived time flow, is it necessarily the same for light, and a few other variables?

 

Thinking about how light is a carrier of information, at least visually over time and space...

 

Is it possible that light is the inverse?

 

If other Netwonian laws vs. Quantum properties of light are the inverse...

 

'Would explain alot. Including the double slit observation

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This response is for Angleochaos.

 

The double-slit observation you mentioned can be looked at in another way besides every possible outcome has happened in an alternate universe or time-line.

 

Instead think of the light-cone representation of time in special relativity. Where in Minkowski space-time there are two cones of light emanating from two opposite points of one event in space-time like an hourglass. In the immediate vicinity of the event the tips of the cones are small representing a small amount of possible outcomes, and the further in space and time you get from the event the larger the diameter of the cone and the larger amount of possible outcomes.

 

The further forward or back you are to move in time, the greater amount of possible variance in time and space.

 

I like this representation better because it doesn't leave me wondering about alternate universes.

 

An interesting exercise is if a photon does not experience time because it travels at c, but it does travel through space. Then how would it fall into this representation of the light cones and time, because light does travel a distance over a quantity of time, and photons are not in existence from the big bang until the end of the known universe they have a finite lifespan and are created and destroyed, or light bulbs could not turn off and on. Instead, light itself, a photon does not experience time, but its emission source does by taking one form of energy, whether it is electricity or hydrogen and converts it into light which would be the event between the two light cones.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...