0
   

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

 
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 12:29 pm
@mark noble,
If you want your observer included in this debate lets have one. One observer watching the two of us acting out our lives, on two different planets. We both have watches recording our progress and we have our observer. For me and you time is relative , we never see time other than our progress through life, one moment at a time. We cant relate it to each other but what does the observer see?

Gravity is a mystery, no one denies its inability to be understood but we have to observe its influence and recognise its effects. Can you honestly say we are not observing two time frames? I'm not asking for an opinion on what it is but what it does.

Sorry for my lack of interpretation of your wishes. I wish the well, xris..
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2010 03:20 pm
@xris,
xris;163026 wrote:
If you want your observer included in this debate lets have one. One observer watching the two of us acting out our lives, on two different planets. We both have watches recording our progress and we have our observer. For me and you time is relative , we never see time other than our progress through life, one moment at a time. We cant relate it to each other but what does the observer see?

Two people paying obsessive attention to their watches.

Gravity is a mystery, no one denies its inability to be understood but we have to observe its influence and recognise its effects. Can you honestly say we are not observing two time frames? I'm not asking for an opinion on what it is but what it does.

Yes I can. And,It attracts gravity-based material. All physical things. Nothing physical can escape it.

Sorry for my lack of interpretation of your wishes. I wish the well, xris..


Hi Xris,

You need never apologise to me, sir. I am apparently "oddly pleasant" according to recent analysis.
But one man's odd is another's even. And I expect as much.

Since our first conversation, I have been floating about the site, trying to establish certain definites. I'm not sure that I'm succeeding awfully well.
So I'll, for now, stand by my own principle beliefs.
Excuse the "watch pun", my humour precedes me sometimes.

What similarities do the planets share? ie; orbital velocity, solar velocity, gravitational force and mass, if any? or are they identical on all fronts?

Thank you and journey well, sir.

Mark...
xris
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 02:42 am
@mark noble,
mark noble;163566 wrote:
Hi Xris,

You need never apologise to me, sir. I am apparently "oddly pleasant" according to recent analysis.
But one man's odd is another's even. And I expect as much.

Since our first conversation, I have been floating about the site, trying to establish certain definites. I'm not sure that I'm succeeding awfully well.
So I'll, for now, stand by my own principle beliefs.
Excuse the "watch pun", my humour precedes me sometimes.

What similarities do the planets share? ie; orbital velocity, solar velocity, gravitational force and mass, if any? or are they identical on all fronts?

Thank you and journey well, sir.

Mark...
I assumed you realised the gravity would be different on each planet by a notable amount.

Excuse me but your demeanor can appear slightly lofty and sarcastic but after your explanation I am assured you are not and bon journey to you to.
0 Replies
 
Ali phil
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 04:11 am
@Alan McDougall,
Havnt read sorry keen for an answer though, is time percieption?
So maybe it would be impossible to tell because our perciption changes with graviety in terms of evolution. I dont know how to explain properly haha
Hmm So for example says the speed of time doubled could our percieption of time just be changed accordingly as if it hadnt changed.
How can we really tell how fast and slow things happen when it is just in comparison to out human reflexes?
perhaps other organisms have a different reality of time?
Or is time a set concept?

Like Eistein said, if you can explain it simple you dont know it well enough.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 04:34 am
@Ali phil,
Ali;163822 wrote:
Havnt read sorry keen for an answer though, is time percieption?
So maybe it would be impossible to tell because our perciption changes with graviety in terms of evolution. I dont know how to explain properly haha
Hmm So for example says the speed of time doubled could our percieption of time just be changed accordingly as if it hadnt changed.
How can we really tell how fast and slow things happen when it is just in comparison to out human reflexes?
perhaps other organisms have a different reality of time?
Or is time a set concept?

Like Eistein said, if you can explain it simple you dont know it well enough.
Who knows? i don't. When we see ants scurrying around and living for such a short period are they experiencing time differently to us? Time must be relative to our experience of it, surely.
0 Replies
 
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 04:48 pm
@Alan McDougall,
The higher or stronger the gravity force the slower time flows and that statement is a fact of science
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 03:21 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;164010 wrote:
The higher or stronger the gravity force the slower time flows and that statement is a fact of science
? thought the clock experiment showed the opposit, that in space time moves slower than on earth.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 06:10 am
@HexHammer,
The higher the gravitational pull the slower time moves. It begs the question did time move at all with the mass the universe contained in that one singularity. Alan I think we are not getting very far.
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 07:25 am
@Alan McDougall,
Hello all,

Time has no physical properties. It is a measurement the human species created to interpret occurences on a rational level.
We allocate time to occurences, and base it on the spin of the earth in relationship to the sun.
The earths diameter is approx' 24,000 miles, it rotates at approx' 1,000mph. and we call one rotation "a day".
Suggesting that it can move faster or slower is irrational.
A day can appear to go slowly for me, and rapidly for you. Because the events therein affect us in accordance to our own perceptions.

1) A season (spring) is a period of time. Gravity cannot make spring any faster or slower, because spring is an imaginary label we apply to a non-existing event (other than in our minds, of course.). We can suggest that spring went quickly, but it actually took as long as it took.

2) Just because a black hole swallows light itself, doesn,t mean it alters time. Light is matter and does exist. If you were in the event horizon of black hole, time would seem to fluctuate, but this is because light is moving differently, and we measure time by light, because it is the fastest matterial we can perceive.

3) light can speed up or slow down, but time remains constantly fixed between the most infinitessimal particles within the continuum.

4) just because a black hole affects the material it swallows, doesn,t mean it affects all material - therefore, the material beyond the event is unnaffected by the event.

Have to go now

Thank you

Mark...
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 08:45 am
@mark noble,
mark noble;164223 wrote:
Hello all,

Time has no physical properties. It is a measurement the human species created to interpret occurences on a rational level.
We allocate time to occurences, and base it on the spin of the earth in relationship to the sun.
The earths diameter is approx' 24,000 miles, it rotates at approx' 1,000mph. and we call one rotation "a day".
Suggesting that it can move faster or slower is irrational.
A day can appear to go slowly for me, and rapidly for you. Because the events therein affect us in accordance to our own perceptions.

1) A season (spring) is a period of time. Gravity cannot make spring any faster or slower, because spring is an imaginary label we apply to a non-existing event (other than in our minds, of course.). We can suggest that spring went quickly, but it actually took as long as it took.

2) Just because a black hole swallows light itself, doesn,t mean it alters time. Light is matter and does exist. If you were in the event horizon of black hole, time would seem to fluctuate, but this is because light is moving differently, and we measure time by light, because it is the fastest matterial we can perceive.

3) light can speed up or slow down, but time remains constantly fixed between the most infinitessimal particles within the continuum.

4) just because a black hole affects the material it swallows, doesn,t mean it affects all material - therefore, the material beyond the event is unnaffected by the event.

Have to go now

Thank you

Mark...
Im sorry but your not answering the questions posed, are you? The two, the two on different planets experiencing varying gravitational effects. Would their watches appear to be at differing times to the third observer?

We are not talking about the effects on light or matter, we are talking about time and gravity. The observed effects not theoretical effects on light in a black hole. Thanks xris.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 09:39 am
@xris,
xris;164249 wrote:
Im sorry but your not answering the questions posed, are you? The two, the two on different planets experiencing varying gravitational effects. Would their watches appear to be at differing times to the third observer?

We are not talking about the effects on light or matter, we are talking about time and gravity. The observed effects not theoretical effects on light in a black hole. Thanks xris.


Hiye Xris

I have spent hours answering your question, but, I am having techical problems beyond your comprehension.

My pc is pre-prehistoric, my dial-up connection is primitive , and if I see one more "page cannot be dislayed" messsage, I'm shoving the whole thing up my dog's bottom.
Hoe you get this!!!

I will keep trying

Thank you and see you when it is possible.

Mark...

---------- Post added 05-14-2010 at 05:41 PM ----------

Hi Xris,

Here we go again, fingers crossed.

We both accept the 24 hr clock as factual. It accords our lives to a general pattern. and brings logic to motion.

Please forgive me if I interpret you incorrectly.

OK - Two people - same time perspective - different planets - different gravity - third party observer?

Planet one - records time as a 48 hr interpretaion (one day)- planet two as 24 hr(one day) - observer=neutral? I assume there is an event occuring, let's say (moon implosion). P1 sees event as beginning and concluding in 48 hr period (One day)- p2 sees event as same, but taking 2 days of p1 and 1 day of its' own. P3 (observer) sees two people recording the same event differently.

Xris - I crashed my car today and am somewhat disassosciated. I haven't got a clue what I'm trying to ascertain here. Can we get to the crux of it by some more obvious route.

What are we trying to establish?

Thank you Xris, and be fantastically well, sir.

Mark...
I am question
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 08:47 pm
@mark noble,
Are we not understanding Einsteins concept of time? First off, no physicists has ever defined time precisely. So all these arguments are fallacious. Without measuring time, how can it slow down anything? Without measuring time, everything would still flow just wonderful. And I dont need a reply about an example of another object cause im only speaking on time. Not one of you seems to be thinking like a scientist here, you all are just looking at other peoples ideas, be creative and be individualistic. As I said before, just think about it, without time existing externally, what would it effect? Its like you guys are trying to prove dreams are physical, it really does make me laugh.
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 09:23 pm
@I am question,
XRIS Proved physics have validated that time moves differently on different planets with different gravity Fields,

Thus time moves faster on the moon with its lower gravity and slower on earth with its higher gravity field, Thus; to a third observer who could see the two clocks , he would note that the earth clock was losing time against the clock on the moon. If we extrapolate this up to the enormous gravity of a neutron star, to an earth observer, a clock in that huge gravity field time would seemed to have stopped. But in reality the clock is working all he has to do is wait maybe a thousand years subjective time and he might see one second move on the neutron star clock relative to his clock on earth :perplexed: (I know)
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 03:11 am
@Alan McDougall,
Exactly Alan but I expect someone will question the validity of science. Its damned hard accepting this fact but it has proven time and time again :sarcastic:
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 07:01 am
@xris,
Hi all,

Imagine the moment before the big bang - A quantum singularity composed of all the ingredients of this universe, as we see them today, confined within. The tiny object we perceive is akin to a pea, in our mind's eye.

We look at this pea from our own perspective (beyond the effect), whereas we were within the effect, deep, deep ,deep, within, and not in our present forms, I hasten to add. The pea, had we had a perspective (from within) would have been as vast and expansive as is this universe now.

And time would have still been no more than a label applied to the distance between two occurences.

A month, a year, a decade - These are earthen perspectives. Gravity does not make A year more or less slower. Our relative perception does. It's like saying - gravity can make a (metre) more or less than 100 centimetres, or a (litre) more or less than 1,000 ml. It can't. Time is constant, always has been, and always will be.

I know this isn't what you want to accept, but it's true.


thank you , and be fruitful.

Mark...
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 07:27 am
@mark noble,
mark noble;164573 wrote:
Hi all,

Imagine the moment before the big bang - A quantum singularity composed of all the ingredients of this universe, as we see them today, confined within. The tiny object we perceive is akin to a pea, in our mind's eye.

We look at this pea from our own perspective (beyond the effect), whereas we were within the effect, deep, deep ,deep, within, and not in our present forms, I hasten to add. The pea, had we had a perspective (from within) would have been as vast and expansive as is this universe now.

And time would have still been no more than a label applied to the distance between two occurences.

A month, a year, a decade - These are earthen perspectives. Gravity does not make A year more or less slower. Our relative perception does. It's like saying - gravity can make a (metre) more or less than 100 centimetres, or a (litre) more or less than 1,000 ml. It can't. Time is constant, always has been, and always will be.

I know this isn't what you want to accept, but it's true.


thank you , and be fruitful.

Mark...
Why are you refusing to answer the question Noble? Its not a trick question. TWO watches both running at different times to the third observer. The two, whose watches we see are not aware of this discrepancy , their time is relative to them...Its only this godly figure that is above their attention .

I will ask you another question how old is the universe? I really would like an answer more than an opinion., please..thanks xris
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 10:07 am
@xris,
xris;164580 wrote:
Why are you refusing to answer the question Noble? Its not a trick question. TWO watches both running at different times to the third observer. The two, whose watches we see are not aware of this discrepancy , their time is relative to them...Its only this godly figure that is above their attention .

I will ask you another question how old is the universe? I really would like an answer more than an opinion., please..thanks xris


Hi Xris,

"Noble"? Ex-serviceman, eh? My father was the last person to refer to me in such a patronising way. He was one of the Hereford mob. "who dares wins" and all that. 25 years we haven't spoken, since. So don't push it.

Your analogy only proves my point. Two persons, different time perspective? Third person concludes - "Time is relative, ONLY, to the beholder.

Universe age - Post Big-bang= 14-20 billion years. I see it as infinite, developed from the criteria that developed it, and "it" that. Always was - always will be.

If you don't like what I have to say or how I say it, Xris? Don't ask me anything more. But, my opinion is as valid as is yours' or anyone elses.

Thank you, and journey well.

Mark...
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 10:45 am
@mark noble,
mark noble;164604 wrote:
Hi Xris,

"Noble"? Ex-serviceman, eh? My father was the last person to refer to me in such a patronising way. He was one of the Hereford mob. "who dares wins" and all that. 25 years we haven't spoken, since. So don't push it.

Your analogy only proves my point. Two persons, different time perspective? Third person concludes - "Time is relative, ONLY, to the beholder.

Universe age - Post Big-bang= 14-20 billion years. I see it as infinite, developed from the criteria that developed it, and "it" that. Always was - always will be.

If you don't like what I have to say or how I say it, Xris? Don't ask me anything more. But, my opinion is as valid as is yours' or anyone elses.

Thank you, and journey well.

Mark...
Sorry you got the gripes over your main handle being used, Mark . If thats your feeling about my enquiry I leave you to it. I just thought this was a debate, not an exercise in opinions. Thanks xris...
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 11:12 am
@xris,
xris;164624 wrote:
Sorry you got the gripes over your main handle being used, Mark . If thats your feeling about my enquiry I leave you to it. I just thought this was a debate, not an exercise in opinions. Thanks xris...


Hi Xris,

I feel, sometimes, that my arguments are irritating to you. I don't intend to avoid your questions. My outlook is simply too broad to easily define.

This is the most polite and adult-based post you have sent me for a while, and I really appreciate it Xris.
I gripe not, Xris. But I instantly perceive frustration, revealing itself, in all its many shapes and sizes.

And all I have Xris, is my opinion - I cannot prove a tot.

Sorry!

Mark...
Ali phil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 07:08 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Wait if time as we know it slowed down how would we know because we must slow down too?
So it would once again seem unchanged?

---------- Post added 05-16-2010 at 02:15 PM ----------

as in how do we observe this?
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/31/2023 at 08:20:33