Why Does Time Fly?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Antti
Student
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 1:41 pm

Why Does Time Fly?

Post #1

Post by Antti »

Why Does Time Fly?

Today many scientists believe in the Big Bang and time travel because nobody wants to question the primary assumptions, i.e. it is much easier to repair the old models using new parameters, dimensions, strings and iron wire. However, if the primary assumptions are wrong then it is very difficult to find the correct answers to many basic questions, for example:

1. Why is the speed of light relatively constant?
2. Why do chemists talk about the rate and speed of processes but physicists talk about time dilatation, time coordinate system changes and time travel?
3. Why is the difference between experimental observations and a theoretical model normally referred to as an "error" but in cosmology, it is called "dark energy”?
4. Why do we assume that gravity is an inter-material pulling force?
5. How two atoms at the opposite side of the universe can attract each other’s – in spite of the huge distances? Pulling graviton particle with negative impulse, mass, speed and energy sounds as an absurd explanation.

We think that gravity pulls a pencil down to the floor if we drop it. However, we may find new routes and explanations if we have the courage to assume that gravity pushes the pencil down to the floor. This simple reassessment will lead to very different and exciting conclusions compared to the traditional way of thinking; but of course, the ultimate truth will be found by comparing and testing different assumptions with experimental observations. Science is based on good assumptions, experimental observations and wise conclusions.

What is time made of?

Time may be regarded either as a simple phenomenon or as a great mystery, depending on our point of view. It is easy to understand what the other physical or chemical base units represent, however, we may ask what does time measure and what is time made of?

We can measure length using the metric gauge and time using the clock. However, the clock measures the oscillation speed of quartz crystal, the sundial measures the rotation speed of the earth and the calendar measures the orbital speed of the earth around the sun. Ie. clocks do not measure time but they measure speed and movement.

Time exists because the world is changing all the time. Time stops when all motion stops. However, without motion our world would die because the orbital motion of the celestial spheres and the atomic particles prevents the collapse of our world, i.e. time is made from the motion of our universe. Time is a relative phenomenon, because the speed of motion depends on the comparison point and because the speed of all processes depends on the local prevailing conditions, such as temperature, speed, gravity, etc.

In this respect time is not a base unit but a derived mathematical unit, which is created from motion and speed. Time is a very practical and handy tool, which makes it possible to arrange and organize events and activities in a reasonable order. However, time is not the fourth dimension, where we can freely move as we can in the other three dimensions. The other base units are also based on motion: electric current is the motion of electrons, light intensity is the motion of photons, temperature is the oscillation of atoms and mass is the inertia of material when it is moved. Length gives the distance of the motion and the amount of material gives the number of moving particles.

Time Machine

The time machine has already been invented, however, it only works forwards. Nearly all of us have such an appliance in our home. We can easily test it by leaving a tomato for two weeks on the table and the other one in the fridge. Time passes more slowly in the fridge because the tomato that was in the fridge seems to be younger than the one on the table, because the low temperature slows down the chemical reactions.

A similar ILLUSION may be created using two accurate clocks. One clock is placed on a plane and the other one on the ground. When the plane comes back, the clock on the plane seems to have lost some time. The substantial movement of the plane in the gravitational field slows down physical processes. This phenomenon is based on process and reaction kinetics and not on a variation in time or exchange of time-space coordinate system, because time is purely a mathematical creation, which arises from real physical or spiritual motion.

All internal motion and “time” stops at the speed of light. Light proceeds using a waveform in the pervasive gravitational energy field at a relatively constant speed, like sound in the air. A homogenous energy field must exist because the speed of light does not depend on the light source speed, neither does it depend on the energy level of the radiation. The old “ether” ocean cannot exist because a material medium would gradually slow down the speed of the photons, electrons and celestial spheres and such an effect has not been observed. However, even the emptiest cubic meter in the universe contains some particles (atoms, protons, photons, etc.), which may interact with the gravity-energy field and radiation to some extent.

The celestial spheres, i.e. material, create holes or valleys in the gravity field. The pressure of gravitation compresses the material and forces the atomic particles to slow down, which will also slow down “time”. The pressure of gravitation, high temperature and nuclear reactions transform the material into energy in the sun. A black hole, extreme gravity and low temperature will transform this energy back into material, which may be released with other forms of energy, for example, in black hole collisions. There is a huge amount of dark material in space that is difficult to see because it does not emit light or other waveforms of energy, but it may be observed indirectly by measuring orbital speeds of the spheres.

Gravity Fills Space

Gravity-energy fills space and only material makes it visible; material is not the source of gravity, but it is the destination. Gravitation is not an inter-material pulling force; rather it is a propulsive force of space that pushes material together. It is very difficult to imagine an inter-material pulling force, which would arise from one individual atom and would attract an other atom at the opposite side of the universe. The all-round gravity ocean feels much more logical explanation for the force which affects within huge distances. Any size of material particles speeds up at exactly the same rate within this gravity flow. The mass of material increases with speed because the material particles interacts with the gravity field.

The old Newtonian laws of gravity work nicely in local conditions because they are blind to the direction of the gravity field. We may also remember that an electric current flows in the opposite direction to what was originally assumed, but the basic equations still work. However, on a large scale, Newton and Einstein formulas do not agree with experimental observations. For example, the observed expansion speed of the universe is much larger than the calculated one. This error is so huge that some 70% of fictional “dark energy” is needed to compensate this apparent error. An-other disagreement may be found between the calculated and observed Doppler shifts of Pioneer 10 and 11 radio signals.

It is the pressure of the gravitation field that expands the universe, not some mystic dark energy. Gravitation turns into heat and other energy forms when it hits matter, and this creates the 3 Kelvin cosmic background radiation glow, heats celestial spheres and has many other effects. Without this extra energy source the black body radiation would cool down the cosmic background radiation in a “few” years down to 0 Kelvin, because the black horizon at the edge of the universe is huge. The gravity field may also be one reason why a lot of energy is needed to reach the absolute zero temperature in the laboratory. Different forms of gravity-energy ocean may even be the primary fuel of the universe, which feeds energy to the celestial systems.

The heat effect of the gravity-energy field is difficult to measure with a calorimeter because this effect is smaller than the accuracy of a standard calorimeter and because we cannot insert the whole earth into a calorimeter. However, on a large scale the heat effect of the gravity field and nuclear reactions are palpable. This heat effect becomes evident some kilometers under our feet and also inside the other celestial spheres, making their core hot. Energy and material never disappear, they are only transformed; this is a basic fact that we can rely upon.

Speed of Gravity

The gravity-energy field is extremely difficult to observe experimentally because it is homogeneous unlike the electromagnetic energy, which is made of definite energy particles like photons. Gravity density is larger in the “empty” space than on the surface of the large celestial bodies, because matter consumes gravity-energy. This creates the gravity-energy flow straight into the suns, planets and other spheres.

The speed of the gravity flow must be extremely high because the acceleration of gravity does not depend on the starting speed of the falling objects and because the delay of the gravity field has not yet been observed. The accelerating gravity flow near the massive celestial objects bends the light, just like the optical lens, this effect has been experimentally observed. The speed of gravity flow into the black hole must be much higher than the speed of light because the light photon cannot proceed against this extremely fast headwind.

Gravity flow pushes the material objects downward because the gravity-energy density is smaller near the earth than up in the sky, just vice versa than traditionally believed. The material objects move in the space without “friction” because the gravity pressure at each side of the object is the same in the “empty” space, i.e. gravity gradient is missing in weightless environment.

The speed of gravity is far from constant; the speed depends mainly on the nearby material objects. The speed is high because there is nothing else which can brake or slow down the speed than the “viscosity” of the gravity field itself. According to the experimental measurements the speed of light seems to be quite constant. For example, Michelson-Morley (1887) or Hils and Hall (1990) did not found any differences in their experimental measurements. If this is true then the light cannot escape from the black hole because light bends backward due to the gravity-energy flow.

It is also possible that the light speed differences have not yet been found because the gravity speed differences within the experimental apparatus have been too small or the vertical vs. horizontal speed of light comparison has not been made. If this is true then the gravity headwind will slow down the speed of light because the photon interacts slightly with the accelerating gravity field like the material particles does. However, much more experiments are needed to verify the real situation.

The space or gravity field must have some kind of buffer effect because the gravity waves has not yet been detected in spite of the huge explosions which have been observed in the nearby galaxies and in the Milky Way. Ie. the space or gravity-energy field must be elastic and viscose in some extent. It seems that we are extremely lucky also in this respect, because gravity waves could cause lot of damage on the earth.

Center of the Universe

According to the latest observations the universe looks like the foam on beer. The visible galaxies and material are located on the surfaces and edges of the individual bubbles of this cellular foam. Everything is rotating in orbits in our universe, so it is very probable that the whole universe is also rotating around some huge black holes, which may look like a huge dark galaxy. In other words, all galaxies are rotating around the same massive gravity wells, which may be the primary source and destination point of the gravity-energy flow.

If the gravity flow has destination points then it should also have source points. The secondary source points may be located in the middle of the cellular foam bubbles of space. From this location the gravity wind blows matter onto the bubble surfaces. Usually all the energy and matter circulate in the universe, therefore the primary source of gravity could be located near the center of the universe; and huge black holes may transmit gravity-energy back to the universe using some primordial energy form. This primary pure energy form cannot react with the material as the gravity-energy does, because this interaction would mix up the celestial systems when this primordial energy flows out from the center to the borders of our Universe.

If these logical assumptions are correct, then the center of our universe may be found from the midpoint of the orbital movement of all the galaxies. This orbital movement of the galaxies is difficult to verify because long time observations are needed due to the huge distances, but even now it seems that the galaxies move like a string of pearls within the universe. Some galaxy layers may even revolve around the center of the Universe in the opposite directions but still around the same focal point, this may also cause some confusion. The midpoints of our solar system and the Milky Way are much easier and faster to find out by observing the orbital movement of planets and suns.

Fluid Dynamic Model of the Universe

The gravity-energy-space approach will give a much more realistic and comprehensive understanding of the real universe than the old fictive time-space approach. Even the new string theory has not been able to explain the construction of the universe in spite of huge investments in this theory. A gravity-space standpoint could make it possible to model the movement of tiny celestial spheres in the vast gravity ocean using computational fluid dynamic (CFD) software with small modifications.

The earth and moon may be used to verify the necessary basic parameters for the fluid dynamic model of the universe. The gravity flows with high speed towards the spheres, which move slowly in this gravity-energy ocean without friction. The random movement of the pendulum, which has been observed within the solar eclipse, may be due to turbulence of the gravity field. The volume ratio between space and matter is huge; the universe is like a sparse particle suspension. However, the gravity ocean is not exactly the same as the old “ether” because gravity is pure energy but ether was assumed to be made of material.

The observed expansion of the universe has been decoded to support the Big Bang assumption, but who knows when expansion started and when it will end? The assumption of expansion is based mainly on red shift of the light, however, some other explanations than expansion may cause this experimental observation. The Microsoft share price may increase this year but this does not prove that it will also increase next year.

On the other hand, the complicated mathematical model of the universe is not valid evidence of the Big Bang if some fictive parameters are needed to agree with experimental observations. Actually anything could be fitted using complicated models with tens of parameters and variables. These kinds of mathematical models tend to give correct answers just because these answers are given to the model in the parameter fitting stage. Of course these complicated models may be useful to silence the skeptics, but they are not valid evidence if they do not agree with experimental observations without fictive parameters.

Holy Assumptions

We still know less than 1% of the physical and chemical truth, so it is not wise to anchor our old assumptions if they do not agree with experimental observations. The amount of our scientific knowledge and data is increasing at exponential rate. Today we know at least 100 times more than some 100 years ago and, in future, after 100 years we probably know at least 100 times more than now. However, the amount of the wisdom does not increase at the same rate if we cannot change our prejudice.

We should keep an open mind in order to go forward in our never-ending exploration. All inventions are based on new ideas and dreams, and they are the main driving force behind science, research and development. It is impossible to invent new ideas if we fear to test the old assumptions and make mistakes. An easy solution is to add new parameters to repair the old models but sometimes the reassessment of the old assumptions may give better results; at least we should have the courage to test some other assumptions than the traditional ones. We should also remember that mathematical models do not command the nature but nature commands the models.

Big Bang theory assumes that the origin and source of the gravity is the matter, however, this has not been experimentally verified, it is only an old traditional belief. So the possibility of the error is 50%, because the source of the gravity could also be the space and the destination may be the matter. In the air plane industry some 0.001% error possibility in the basic assumptions causes extensive risk analyses, however, in the cosmology 50% error possibility closes the ears, eyes and mouths.

The most sophisticated scientific models will fail to reach the correct results if some of the basic assumptions is not valid, regardless of the huge investments on the theory, mathematics and testing. For example, if the car driving control model is developed and valid in Florida then it may fail in Alaska if the model does not take into account one-millimeter ice layer on the road. The global climate models will fail, for example, if the effect of sea currents has not been properly specified. In the same way brilliant cosmological models will fail if the effect of the time and gravity has been misunderstood.

Reversible Reactions

We cannot make the clock run in reverse or turn an old tomato into a fresh one, because it is impossible to change the direction of physical and chemical reactions, which contain random factors. Usually the chemical and physical reactions have been regarded as reversible. However, this is not the whole truth, because, thermal motion vibrates quarks, protons, electrons, atoms and molecules. Therefore it is impossible to reverse chemical reactions exactly into the original state and location. For example, if we melt and freeze water several times then we can be absolutely sure that the order and location of the molecules in the crystalline ice and water fluid is every time different.

Especially if we take into account that in our world we have some 100 elements taking part with the millions of chemical and physical reactions, then we should understand that the reactions and processes are never completely reversible because of the random factor, which mix the locations. The random factor originating from the thermal motion of atoms is one main reason why all snowflakes, leafs, and trees are different. It is also one cause why the identical twins are not exactly identical.

Summary

We do not need to worry about the disturbance of cause and effect because the present time is and was the only existing time. Juice may quickly be changed into wine by changing the speed of the natural processes, but we can travel in time only in our minds, because time is a mathematical and mental illusion but gravity is the real physical thing.

However, time is flying because our world is changing all the time; change is the cause and time is the effect. Continuous change is a great thing because the human mind prefers insecurity to boredom. Time flies faster at the point that is moving slower, according to the Theory of Relativity. It is funny that time also flies faster in the human mind as the number of year’s increases and our physical speed decreases.

Antti Roine, January 15 – November 19, 2005 ;)

Some References

Aristotle may have been one of the first to assume that time is made from movement.

LeSage gravity (kinetic theory of gravity), published in 1784:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gravity

Professor Petr Beckmann proposed replacing the word "Aether" with "Gravity", but he did not believe that "Gravity fills space".
- Beckmann, P. 1987. Einstein Plus Two, Golem Press, Boulder, CO.

Bryan G. Wallace found that the speed of light might not be exactly constant. However, he did not mention that speed might depend on the gravitation field.
- Wallace, B.G. 1969. "Radar Testing of the Relative Velocity of Light in Space," Spectroscopic Letters, 2, 361.
- Wallace, B.G. 1983. Letter to the Editor, Physics Today, 36, 1.

The calculated Doppler shifts of Pioneer 10 and 11 radio signals do not agree with the experimentally observed Doppler shifts. Pioneer 10/11 speeds seem to decrease too much.
- Renshaw, C. 1999. "Explanation of the Anomalous Doppler Observations in Pioneer 10 and 11," Proc. IEEE Aerospace Conf., 2, 59-63.

Ronald R. Hatch has found disagreements between experimental observations and Einstein theories.
- Hatch, R.R. 1992. Escape from Einstein, Kneat Company, Wilmington, CA.

Häfele-Keating experiment does not measure time dilation; instead they measure the rate of the processes.
- Häfele, J.C. and Keating, R.E. 1972. "Around-the-world Atomic Clock: Measured Relativistic Time Gains," Science, 177, 168-170.

Some nice draft maps of the universe and the Milky Way:
- http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/universe.html
- http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/galaxy.html

Marcus Chow: Catching the cosmic wind, Maurizio Consoli
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fun ... 624930.900

The Casimir effect: a force from nothing:
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/9/6
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encycl ... effect.htm
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-casmir-effect.htm

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

PS. I would be glad to get your feedback and comments how to improve this column.
Last edited by Antti on Sat Nov 19, 2005 7:02 am, edited 10 times in total.

User avatar
bigmrpig
Student
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 7:45 pm

Post #2

Post by bigmrpig »

I don't understand how this relates to Creationism vs Evolutionism. I also don't understand what your subject of debate is, specifically. You brought up several drastically different points, and did not ask any questions about them... merely stated your (and others' that you've read from, I assume) observations.


Also, I don't understand what you mean by

We cannot make the clock run in reverse or turn an old tomato into a fresh one, because it is impossible to change the direction of physical and chemical reactions, which contain random factors.
Many chemical reactions can be reversed... any chemicals that reach an equilibrium are reacting equally in both directions, and the reaction can move further in one direction through the use of a catalyst. What do you mean by "it is impossible to change the direction of physical and chemical reactions?" And what exactly do you mean by a "physical reaction"? A response to a stimulus?

User avatar
Chem
Apprentice
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 8:49 am
Location: Ireland

Post #3

Post by Chem »

Quote:


We cannot make the clock run in reverse or turn an old tomato into a fresh one, because it is impossible to change the direction of physical and chemical reactions, which contain random factors.


Many chemical reactions can be reversed... any chemicals that reach an equilibrium are reacting equally in both directions, and the reaction can move further in one direction through the use of a catalyst. What do you mean by "it is impossible to change the direction of physical and chemical reactions?" And what exactly do you mean by a "physical reaction"? A response to a stimulus?
All chemical reactions are theoretically in equilibrium. The reactions that favour the products tend to be more or less complete though on a microscopic scale there would still be some of the products breaking down, reforming the reactants.
2. Why do chemists talk about the rate and speed of processes but physicists talk about time dilatation and time travel?
Different areas of research. I can't imagine the rate of a reaction fast enough to cause a temporal distortion :) . Can you?
"I'd rather know than believe" Carl Sagan.

"The worst Government is the most moral. One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when the fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression." H.L. Mencken

Antti
Student
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 1:41 pm

Combined Viewpoint (Theistic viewpoint)

Post #4

Post by Antti »

bigmrpig wrote:I don't understand how this relates to Creationism vs Evolutionism. I also don't understand what your subject of debate is, specifically. You brought up several drastically different points, and did not ask any questions about them... merely stated your (and others' that you've read from, I assume) observations.


Also, I don't understand what you mean by

We cannot make the clock run in reverse or turn an old tomato into a fresh one, because it is impossible to change the direction of physical and chemical reactions, which contain random factors.
Many chemical reactions can be reversed... any chemicals that reach an equilibrium are reacting equally in both directions, and the reaction can move further in one direction through the use of a catalyst. What do you mean by "it is impossible to change the direction of physical and chemical reactions?" And what exactly do you mean by a "physical reaction"? A response to a stimulus?
bigmrpig

Many thanks for the feedback. I try to explain the sentense in more detail:

Scientific Viewpoint

The time, gravity, space and speed of light are the key elements of the scientific evolution models of our universe. The "Big Bang" theory is too often regarded as proven scientific fact, because the basic assumptions of "Big Bang" do not stand on the rock solid base. This paper discuss of the time, gravity, space and light, therefore I feel that it fits nicely under the heading "Creationism vs Evolutionism". See, for example:
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

The light arriving from distant suns, our geological sediments and layers of glaciers tell the scientific truth of the evolution, if we want to read this truth. It cannot be in disagreement with the religious truth. However, the science has not been able to give any better explanation for the primary origin of our universe than the God. When science moves one step forward then it always finds the second question to explore. The God is the primary reason for the believer but the atheist tries to find some other cause, inspite it exist in his soul as a God's Adjuster.

Religious Viewpoint

The 20 major world religions offer at least 500 different creation stories. Is it possible that only one of these is absolutely correct? See, for example:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/evolutio.htm

We should also take into account that the language and words change and develop all the time. Even the meaning of the words change, for example, some 10 years ago the "net" stand for "fishing net" for me, but today it means the "World Wide Web".

Some 3000 years ago it would have been impossible to explain the creation of the world using the words: neutrons, fotons, atoms, galaxies or universe. The explanation must have been expressed using the figurative language with existing words and concepts.

Combined Viewpoint (Theistic viewpoint)

The scientific and religious truth is beautiful, so why not combine these? Then we have the God which gives us the framework, natural rules, material, life, soul and the spirit. He is our primary source and destination. See, for example:
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/

Chemical Reactions

Usually the chemical and physical reactions have been regarded as reversible. However, this is not the whole truth, because, thermal motion vibrates quarks, protons, electrons, atoms and molecules. Therefore it is impossible to reverse chemical reactions exactly into the original state and location. For example, if we melt and freeze water several times then we can be absolutely sure that the order and location of the water molecules in the crystalline ice is every time different.

Especially if we take into account that in our world we have some 100 elements taking part with the millions of chemical and physical reactions, then we should understand that the reactions and processes are never completely reversible because of the random factor which mix the locations.

All Trees are Different

The random factor originating from the thermal motion of atoms is one main reason why all snowflaces, leafs, and trees are different. It is also one cause why the identical twins are not exactly identical.

Antti ;)
Last edited by Antti on Thu Jun 02, 2005 5:33 am, edited 2 times in total.

Antti
Student
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 1:41 pm

Chemical equilibrium

Post #5

Post by Antti »

Chem wrote:
Quote:

We cannot make the clock run in reverse or turn an old tomato into a fresh one, because it is impossible to change the direction of physical and chemical reactions, which contain random factors.

Many chemical reactions can be reversed... any chemicals that reach an equilibrium are reacting equally in both directions, and the reaction can move further in one direction through the use of a catalyst. What do you mean by "it is impossible to change the direction of physical and chemical reactions?" And what exactly do you mean by a "physical reaction"? A response to a stimulus?
All chemical reactions are theoretically in equilibrium. The reactions that favour the products tend to be more or less complete though on a microscopic scale there would still be some of the products breaking down, reforming the reactants.

Antti: At the equilibrium state the rate of the reaction is exactly the same as the rate of the reverse reaction. At chemical equilibrium the chemical potentials of the elements are the same in different phases. We may change the course of the the reaction by changing, for example, the temperature, pressure or amounts of the products or reactants.

2. Why do chemists talk about the rate and speed of processes but physicists talk about time dilatation and time travel?
Different areas of research. I can't imagine the rate of a reaction fast enough to cause a temporal distortion :) . Can you?
Antti: I prefer to think that only the rate and speed of chemical and physical reactions is real but the time dilatation is an illusion because time is also some sort of illusion. The chemical reactions go on at the huge speed of outer electrons of the atoms if the distances are short, but ofcourse in many cases it takes time for the atoms to arrance the appointment.

Curious
Sage
Posts: 933
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 6:27 pm

Re: Why Does Time Fly?

Post #6

Post by Curious »

Antti wrote: Time exists because the world is changing all the time. Time stops when all motion stops.
I think you will find that rather than stopping it ceases to be linear in nature. In other words time becomes simultaneous.
Antti wrote:
A similar ILLUSION may be created using two accurate clocks. One clock is placed on a plane and the other one on the ground. When the plane comes back, the clock on the plane seems to have lost some time. The substantial movement of the plane in the gravitational field slows down physical processes. This phenomenon is based on process and reaction kinetics and not on a variation in time.
I am not sure at all how you came to this conclusion.
Antti wrote:
Light proceeds using a waveform in the pervasive gravitational energy field at a relatively constant speed, like sound in the air. A homogenous energy field must exist because the speed of light does not depend on the light source speed, neither does it depend on the energy level of the radiation. The old “ether” ocean cannot exist because a material medium would gradually slow down the speed of the photons, electrons and celestial spheres and such an effect has not been observed. However, even the emptiest cubic meter in the universe contains some particles (atoms, protons, photons, etc.), which may interact with the gravity field and radiation to some extent.
But surely using this model light would pass more strongly through areas with highest field concentrations which is not what we find.
Antti wrote:
The celestial spheres, i.e. material, create holes in the gravity field. The pressure of gravitation compresses the material and forces the atomic particles to slow down, which will also slow down “time”.
Gravitational fields permeate matter. There is no hole in the gravitational field where the earth exists for example.
Antti wrote:
Gravity fills space and only material makes it visible; material is not the source of gravity. Gravitation is not an inter-material pulling force; rather it is a propulsive force of space that pushes material together. It is difficult to imagine the inter-material pulling force, which would arise from one individual atom and would attract an other atom at the opposite side of the universe. The all-round gravity ocean feels much more logical explanation for the force which affects within huge distances. Any size of material particles speeds up at exactly the same rate within this gravity flow.
But the closer to the centre of the gravitational field you get, the greater the force and so greater the acceleration. How would your theory account for this if the force was repulsive rather than attractive?
Antti wrote: It is the pressure of the gravitation field that expands the universe, not some mystic dark energy. Gravitation turns into heat and other energy forms when it hits matter, and this creates the 3 Kelvin cosmic background radiation glow, heats celestial spheres and has many other effects. Without this extra energy source the black body radiation would cool down the cosmic background radiation in a “few” years down to 0 Kelvin.
Even if the universe lost 50% of its heat energy per second it would never reach 0 kelvin.
This post has me a little confused. There are a great many more points I might or might not disagree with had I been able to follow your logic. There seems to be a decided lack of data to back up the theory and the post seems to change position from "what if and maybe this is right" to " this is right". It is an interesting idea but lets not rewrite the science books just yet.
"the search for meaningful answers... to pointless questions"

User avatar
QED
Prodigy
Posts: 3798
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:34 am
Location: UK

Re: Why Does Time Fly?

Post #7

Post by QED »

Antti wrote:
Holy Assumptions
We still know less than 1% of the physical and chemical truth
Now here's an interesting figure. It seems to be very much at the heart of your piece, but I would like you to tell me how you know how much of the "truth" science has gotten at thus far compared to what remains to be discovered?

Antti
Student
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 1:41 pm

Re: Why Does Time Fly?

Post #8

Post by Antti »

QED wrote:
Antti wrote: Holy Assumptions
We still know less than 1% of the physical and chemical truth
Now here's an interesting figure. It seems to be very much at the heart of your piece, but I would like you to tell me how you know how much of the "truth" science has gotten at thus far compared to what remains to be discovered?
QED

Today the science knows much more than last year. Last year science knew much more than in the previous year. Actually within the last 200 years the amount of our knowledge of the nature has increased with exponential rate. So I really do not believe that this increase of scientific knowledge will suddenly stop.

I have the experience that when the scientific research solves one question then it always finds two new ones. Our world is created in this way that we can zoom in to the smallest detail or zoom out to the largest object without finding the original cause.

One hundred years ago the quantity of the scientific data was less than 1% of the data what we have now available. It is very propable that in future, after one hundred years, they have at least one hundred times more scientific data available what we have now.

Ie. there must exist lot of such phenomena of what we have not a smallest clue now.

Antti

User avatar
QED
Prodigy
Posts: 3798
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:34 am
Location: UK

Post #9

Post by QED »

Good answer Antti, the map of knowledge might be fractal. However, at many significant levels the universe appears to be quantized, so that places some restrictions on things.

It is a curiosity that in any realm which is not quantized exists a paradox, for example:
First stated in 1924, the Banach-Tarski paradox states that it is possible to dissect a ball into six pieces which can be reassembled by rigid motions to form two balls of the same size as the original. The number of pieces was subsequently reduced to five by Robinson (1947), although the pieces are extremely complicated.
From Mathworld

As much as this appears to be nonsensical, the math is solid. Anyone who has not come across this paradox might find googling for Banach-Tarski paradox brings up some more thought provoking material.

Antti
Student
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 1:41 pm

Knowledge is like a fractal

Post #10

Post by Antti »

QED wrote:Good answer Antti, the map of knowledge might be fractal. However, at many significant levels the universe appears to be quantized, so that places some restrictions on things.

It is a curiosity that in any realm which is not quantized exists a paradox, for example:
First stated in 1924, the Banach-Tarski paradox states that it is possible to dissect a ball into six pieces which can be reassembled by rigid motions to form two balls of the same size as the original. The number of pieces was subsequently reduced to five by Robinson (1947), although the pieces are extremely complicated.
From Mathworld

As much as this appears to be nonsensical, the math is solid. Anyone who has not come across this paradox might find googling for Banach-Tarski paradox brings up some more thought provoking material.
QED

Yes, I agree, knowledge is like a fractal without any limit of detail.

It is amazing how much the mother nature seems to utilize mathematics. I also agree that math is solid. However, I do not believe that all what can be proven with mathematics really exist in the nature.

Antti

Post Reply