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

Alan McDougall
I have had a rethink about this question, if we sort of reverse it, as the universe expands it gets larger and larger less dense with less and less of a gravity field until the general gravity reaches zero;wont time speed up until it reaches infinity?

wont time speed up until it reaches infinity?

I have not heard this before from them. Most cosmologists that I know don't talk like that. Anyone that understands thermal dynamics would never talk like that. First law of thermodynamics? Conservation of energy, energy can only be transformed, it can not be created or destroyed.

This is why the theory of soul does not sit with me. The soul would require infinite amount of energy unless it ate food like we do. If it had some power source to transform energy into being. I don't see how it would operate therefore I don't see how a soul could exist. You could say that god fuels the soul with infinite energy. That would mean that god is either a converter of energy or a type of circuit or sorts where the energy loss is reabsorbed back to the source. I have never heard anyone talk about god being a battery for the soul. I'll let you have that one for free.



I disagree. Science will never have to meet anything metaphysical, or supernatural. The day it does this, it will cease being science in my opinion.

The simplest answer is generally the correct answer. My simple explanation is that space and time have always been present. Matter and energy are just an exchange within that space. My theory does not violate thermodynamics since I do not have to create anything.

The question then begs into what is the universe expanding?

The question then begs into what is the universe expanding?

Well according to my theory, the space has always been here. So the matter and energy is expanding within this infinite space. You could say that the universe is not separate from this infinite space. We take the matter, the visible parts of the universe as the whole, but I am saying that matter within the infinite space is together the universe. Therefore there really is no expansion of the universe. There is just expansion or separation of matter and energy within the infinite space. In other words, the universe isn't expanding because it is already infinite.

Nearly every astrophysicist will dispute that,

there is exact proof that the universe is indeed expanding due to the redshift of light from remote galaxies all of them "without we exception we now know are moving away" from out milky way galaxy.

If they are indeed all moving away from us then by reversing the process they must all have originated at some very early moment and we call that moment the big bang

I suppose I missed the boat on this discussion... but the idea of time being a misconception of velocity has always seemed very probable to me.

We are able to measure velocity with our eyes and there is no doubt a limit to the speed of our brain function, so if you take that brain "speed limit" and combine it with the ability to observe velocity on different scales, then it seems evident that time is just a result of the ratio between two speeds, our brain and whatever we are looking at. Hence, "that went by fast" and "that went by quickly" are two very similar ideas. One involves one piece of the ratio, the other the ratio itself.

However I am unsure how to couple this with relativity, I am not that advanced in my physics toolbox.

Yes I am familiar with red shift. This only accounts for the matter moving away from each other. There are two problems, one it does not address the actual space itself and two we are on a collision course with Andromeda. If space were expanding uniformly then no galaxies could ever collide. We know that galaxies do collide.

"Nearly every astrophysicist will dispute that,"

There is only three possible models that the universe can take. Open, closed or flat-infinite. We have some evidence that will help us to determine which type of universe we live in. We can use the background radiation data to do this. What we do is we construct all three types of universes on a computer and enter the background radiation data as it would have been known to exist at the time of the big bang. The ONLY model that supports the background data that we have is the flat-infinite universe model. Meaning? That we live in a universe that is already infinite in size. The only thing that is not infinite, is the matter within it. This means that the current observations of the expansion are only taking into consideration the matter, but neglecting the actual space itself.

One thing you missed here and like I mentioned at the end of my post. If you have an edge of the universe, what is on the other side of that edge?

If the big bang brought with it the void and the space, then did it also create the void on the other side of the space too?

Imagine a balloon. Inside the balloon is the universe as we know it. The matter and space was created at the big bang. The edge of the balloon is the edge of the universe. Well then what is outside the edge of the universe? Nothing? If it is nothing, then by all means my theory of time and space already being present it just the same.

Therefore time and space could be as I have theorized with matter being a flux of energy. No big bang is required. Time and space are infinite in all directions and always have been.

Ive read of this theory before but what intrigues me, is how this theory discounts the regression we observe going back to the singularity ,how does it fit into your view. I have mentioned this nothing that we speak of, outside of the universe, it is another paradox. You cant have nothing, so although we are told the universe is expanding, it cant be because there is nothing to expand into. My box ,empty box, is the question I always ask and no one it appears can or will answer.

If I have a box with absolutely nothing in it does the box exist. If you place yourself in a box within that box , what exists. I believe you could be right but explaining it , or even beginning to understand it, is a bit daunting.

The evidence points towards both, there is more redshift coming from the far end of the middle, and less redshift coming from our own, since we are moving in the same general direction.

You seem to be saying the equivalent of: in a high-speed chase, the cop can't catch up to the robber unless he accelerates.
However we are talking about relatively frictionless space here, so one galaxy (the cop) need not accelerate to catch up to the other (the robber), they could've had different initial velocities from the big bang and taken this long to meet, or one could've been accelerated by a collision or the pull of another galaxy or galaxy cluster.

Who are you referencing for this? Cosmic background radiation is fundamental evidence for the big bang theory, that's why it won out over the solid-state theory that was competing at the time.

If matter is expanding away from other matter, then unless this stops we are doomed to an open universe.
The idea of a critical density assumes the only accelerant is gravity, but if the expansion of the universe is speeding up it means the force of gravity has already been overpowered and we are already in an open universe.

I completely agree with you here, but I really don't like your example. Funny as that is. I don't think you fully captured what you wanted to say completely. I mean what if you took out the brain factor? Replace it with a camera and film? Even if the film flew by at incredible speeds, lets say the speed of light, you think we couldn't maintain a time constant?



I do agree that there is some discrepancy here and it should be considered for observations. But I don't think its the only way that we can measure the flow of time.

I wonder how much of this is effected by the black holes in the galaxy? It stands to reason that if gravity can curve the path of light then by all means it could also stretch the wave length of light also. So any light that passes in front of a black hole would appear to be stretched in frequency. Thus red shifted.

Not exactly. If the expansion of space is uniform then by all means the distances would increase even if they were moving towards each other. So to put it in terms that I mean using your example. It would be like the cop car and the robber car were not moving but instead the road between them was stretching in all directions equally. This means their distance from each other increases. But if you were to start moving them, you have to cancel the expansion rate with their velocities and then they would still need a positive velocity gain to be able to collide.

So if everything is uniformly moving apart in all directions. There is no possible way that two galaxies could ever collide unless their velocities canceled out the expansion rate. But if we are canceling out the expansion rate, why haven't all the galaxies done this in some form? We would find evidence for varying degrees of expansion but we don't. That's why we use the hubble constant.

Lawrence Krauss

But none of the data supports that we have an open universe.

I use the example because I think it was the only thing available at the time when the idea "time" was thought up. It could be that there is no need for a ratio, that just the speed limit of the brain is important, and that would probably make it more mathematically compatible with relativity, and help explain why other phenomena are seen to occur on a "timely" basis, such as radioactive decay.

Are you implying that atomic decay is an observational error? I just think the reason we find discrepancies in the decay rate is due to energy itself. One of my favorite parts in deferential equations was determining temperature changes in materials as the heat source moved. What I noticed was that even small amounts of energy could drastically effect the outcome. So on a subatomic level I can easily see that each molecule doesn't have equal energy. If each atom of the same type does not have equal energy then by all means their decay rate will be impacted by this. So you will observe, if I am right, inconsistent decay rates.

I do not know enough about decay rates, but I was implying that if decay rates have nothing to do with velocity, then my thoughts on time would be incomplete or false.

Oh maybe you have to back up a little bit. Which velocity are you referring to here? If you don't mind can you re-explain your theory again for me so I can put them both together at the same time? pun intended.

I often wondered what a completely stationary object would experience in space, but we have never observed anything completely stationary. Since the galaxy is moving, and we are orbiting the galaxy, and the sun, we never get a chance to see what it would be like to be completely zero velocity.

If you are going, where I think you are going, I think time is impacted by these velocities. But as far as decay rates, I can't see the connection. I know time is required, but what are you implying about the time? That we only experience time because we have velocity? If we were to reach absolute zero velocity there would be no decay?

It was made apparent by someone else much more qualified than me that if you take time out of certain equations, they are solvable. I am talking about time being a concept directly dependent on velocity, namely the velocity of our synapses.

All velocities are relative so there is no such thing as zero velocity, it all depends on who is looking at who. You could try to achieve zero angular momentum in an atom, but that is the closest to "zero velocity" we hope to aim for.