Time is it moving slower than it was in the young universe?

With current cosmological understanding it conflicts with the idea that the greater the mass the slower time becomes.

Your only giving theoretical musings not accepted science or cosmological witness. The problem still exists. We had a time when time did not exist what made it tick?

If time stood still, how can anything evolve? Therefore Einstein must be wrong in his preception of time.

I believe there is a misunderstanding here.

Time does exist and to us it operates at the rate at which we can measure it.
For time to have changed (i.e. is now moving slower) I would suggest that it must have been operating at a faster rate previously. Therefore it has no bearing on evolution.

It is still highly speculative that time has changed at all. From what I understand, the rate at which times operates is based on the speed at which light travels. Which brings us to philosophize on the paradoxes that are unleashed as we have proved that the speed of light is different through different mediums and relating to gravity.

I may be wrong but Alan is proposing that if you had a mass so large as when the BB occured, would the resulting gravitational pull be so great, time ceased to exist. Well that's what I am asking..

I think I understood the Alans suggestion. However when the BB occured how do you measure when the forces were created, when the first leptons were built without time?

There is definately a valid argument to suggest that at the precise moment the big bang occured there was no time, however at some point time must have existed or was created in order to measure exactly when the forces and then matter were created.

---------- Post added 05-10-2010 at 11:16 AM ----------

One other thing to consider is what happens to time when you pass the event horizon of a black hole.

Hello all,

Whose concept of time is being discussed here, Einstein? Einstein was good at stating the obvious like E=mc2, But everything =mc2.
And - space and time being relative to that which exists within? so is size, depth, form and all other related dimensions.

Anyway "time is constant" have no doubt, it doesn't speed up or slow down, relative time that is, of course. This universe 'ours' is built on criteria interacting with criteria, whereas the criteria is in a state of increase and thereafter decrease.

Drop a million golf balls from a fixed height - one will land first, one will land last, and all the others will create an apparent timeframe between these two points. - but none of them will land at exactly the same time.
Now - if you choose to try this with a trillion golf balls? - the same will result - this doesn't mean that time moves any faster, only that the criteria has increased.
Given that - if this universe's energy is quantifiable then the matter therein remains constant, yet variable - then matter and energy are restricted to altering location at a fixed rate - negating the increase or decrease notion.
If, indeed, this universe is subject to the externalities imposed upon it by M-theory, then it is of infinite variability, yet still quantifiable.
So, either way, what we can observe must remain constant, for it is subject to its own principles.

Thank you and fare well.

Mark...

May be you would be brave enough to say that gravity does not effect time then...

Hi Xris,

I don't see it as an act of bravado, but gravity, to me is based in the QM. You are aware of my "prime-particle" concept, so What you are asking is - Is the nucleai of said particle ever-present? or is the particle itself subjected to an interior process that is seperate from the gravitational force that is ultimately present at each location the said particle locates?

Good question Xris! If the electron is the process by which I determine my sole-particle principle? then No, If the nucleai? then yes.

Ultimately - gravity cannot affect itself and therefore is an ingredient of the process of time.

Wheredoth time tread doth gravity tread also.

My summation of this is - no matter how implausible it may appear...

[CENTER]Gravity=Time[/CENTER]

Thankyou Xris, I enjoyed that.


Mark...

I'm sorry Mark but I do not believe you actually answered my question. Your not the only one who appears very reticent to accept this basic concept.

Hi Chris,

I'm sorry you see it that way.
Your question was - Does gravity affect time?
In my eyes - gravity is time. They are one and the same.
Now your question reads - Does time affect time?
I'll answer it, the only way I can - To affect time, their has to be a component of time that self-affects, seeing that time is progressed by its own evolution, it is required to function in a constant state of progression, so NO Xris - gravity does not affect time. It cannot alter an event that has taken place, it can only evolve the residual components that have themselves evolved, by depletion.

Thank you Xris. Hope I've answered you , if not I'll paint a better picture next time.

Mark...

Does gravity effect time?

It depends on the observer.
If you were travelling towards a black hole, the light leaving you would be caught by the immense gravitational pull and slow down.
To someone watching you, you would appear to slow down to almost a standstill as you reach the event horizon. So time would have appeared to slow down.
To you, you would accelerate across the event horizon and be spaghettified, at realtime.

At least that's the physics of it.

So science is wrong? I did not ask if it could alter events by the way. I find this strange that its either denied or not accepted, why is that? Gravity can not be described as time even if they are linked , time is the record of how long an event takes, gravity defines the time not describes it.

Yes xris - science is wrong.

And I didn't ask you about whether science is correct or not, by the way.

Do you have the definition of gravity handy? Nobody else seems to understand its exact nature. Just because I do - makes me wrong?

Gravity nor time are exact sciences, even exact science isn't all that exact.
In my mindset - Every proton, quark, gluon, Etc is a universe comprised of their own relative subatomic components - with gravitational forces and timelines of their own - this continues infinitely inwards and infinitely outwards - This universe (ours) is an atomic ingredient of that beyond and that beyond that - infinitely.

Until these measurements are quantified - then nothing is an exact science Xris. As for time - being affected by gravity - It is and it isn't - depending on which gravitational force and timeline you are referring to - Time is the gap between gravitational resonance and the gap between the origin of said relative-gravitons existence and its first action.

Time is not subject to anything other than itself , It is only a measurement- Gravity is born to and functions Because of the process of time, not the reverse.

Thank you Xris and fare well.

Mark...

Science tells us the greater the mass the slower time is. Do you agree?

Time for who? It depends on the observer.

Time for who? It depends on the observer.

Sorry but this appears a very well constructed bit of waffle. Time is a measurement, a measurement of what? A ruler is measurement of a ruler , not very clear what you mean. How do you explain the reasoning and the practical experiments showing, yes proving that gravity changes time? I dont see how you have not committed your views for review , they go against all accepted science. A brisk farewell is not conducive to an open debate, is it?

You dont have to observe time for it to pass.

---------- Post added 05-11-2010 at 09:48 AM ----------


YouTube - Time, gravity and SATNAV - Horizon - What on Earth is Wrong with Gravity? - BBC I hope this helps to move the debate on...Time does not need an observer.