time relative to...

The first step to understanding this is to understand that motion is relative. This first principle is called "Classical relativity" and you really can't tackle the complicated stuff until you have grasped the basic principles.. I suspect you should start here because this because this phrase doesn't make any sense...



Start by reading this and then lets discuss...

http://library.thinkquest.org/26038/low-tech/en/classical_relativity/1/1.html

You are not zipping along due to expansion. Every place in the Universe is the center of the expansion, even you. You are motionless (with regards to expansion) and everything else is expanding away from you.

You need to rethink your questions with that fact in mind. Then ask again.

Every place being the center??

That doesnt make too much sense
With simple physics in play and assuming time/motion/space were consequences of the big bang, that is the one and only center of expansion. And i doubt science will ever decide or discover true center of expansion.

Furthermore. You, yourself are not warping the fabric of space. We are all in the warp that Earth has made on the fabric.

Also< read up on some Brian Greene

The fact that it doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. It is well understood that every place in the Universe is the center. It is frustrating when people who obviously haven't spent much time studying physics make such broad pronouncements with confidence.

sorry i didnt finish the sentence.. correct. it doesnt make sense to me...
I thought that "me" writing the sentence implied it didnt make sense to "me"
dont get so defensive, just a chat

Now, as a human and constant observer of physics every single day, I collect that if there was one "big bang" then there should only be one center. I havent read anything describing multiple centers and yes to me that doesnt make sense

On this matter. I believe we all have the capability to understand the nature of physics and develop theories based on them. This doesnt make me a naive learner of physics

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

Of course you have the capability to understand the nature of physics and develop theories based on them, as long as you have put the time in to learn the math involved.

Physics is based on mathematics which has turned out to be quite effective, not only about understanding and making predictions about the nature of our Universe, but also about providing practical science usable as technology.

Physicists try to put the physics into "layman's terms" so people can get an faint idea of what is being done and why it is important. But without understanding the math, you can't possible really understand what is going on. And without the math you aren't doing physics. This has been true since the time of Isaac Newton.

The physics in this thread are from the field General Relativity. This field involves multivariate calculus and partial differential equations. You can understand these things, but first you need a couple of solid years of college calculus (which requires a solid understanding of Algebra before that).

If you are willing to put in the time to learn the math and the science, then you certainly can get to the point where you can "understand the nature of physics and develop theories based on them".

But the simple stuff was discovered before Isaac Newton (400 year ago) and lots of really smart people have been constantly learning and developing and testing new theories and new math and new understanding.

If anything thinks they can jump to the front of the class without putting in the time and effort required to learn what has already been done, that would make them a naive learner.

So I am not saying that you can't do it. I am simply saying that you should put in the work to learn the math first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation

You might find this article on gravitational time dilation of interest, it slows me down.

thanks for the replies. Im aware i have limited knowledge just trying to make heads or tails of the world around me. Sorry if i have sparked up an argument :/ . Il give that link a try. And yes i remember now about every point stretching out but i dont move faster than light(another documentary.) if i took the time to imagine my grid or rubber matt stretching i wouldnt be zipping along it id just see the squares of the grid get bigger as i sat on my cross section. Or as the documentary described it, a marble on a rubber matt being stretched outwards (marble being the perfect centre) matt gets larger marble stays still

Yes.
The easiest analogy to grasp is the "Raisin Bread" analogy. As raisin-bread bakes, it expands, but from the point of view of any raisin within the loaf, IT is the center of the expansion. We are the raisins within the Universe. Everyplace is the center of the expansion.

Don't worry. All of A2K is like one big giant argument
Yes. Try the "baking bread" analogy, it seems to help most people get a grasp of what's happening.

Remember that the baking bread analogy is imprecise because the bread expands into an already existing space, and because it has edges. The Universe is not expanding INTO anything (that we are aware of), and it doesn't have any edges. In the case of the Universe, Space AND Time are expanding.

i just spent over an hour writing a reply and i was asked to log back in at the end of it, it promised my reply would still be there when i had signed in but it was gone. Massivly annoyed and dont think i can bring myself to type it again any time soon. Thanks for your time. Andyr19

I hate it when that happens.

I feel much differently about this. Yes education on any matter is important but these "smart" people you are talking about did in there backyards all on there own and came up with some wacky ideas that proved and disproved all through time... Remember, a really "smart person" said the earth was flat. I can just as easy observe nature on my own and come up with some solid ideas, theories and hypothesizes without a 8 yr college degree. I ll leave the complex stuff to figure out how far a star is and what is it burning to the big equations, but as far as im concerned, here on earth, im just as good an observer of nature as anyone

"From the point of view". It only SEEMS like every place is the center of expanding. But thats the best answer we will ever have. We know we will never be able to define the one center of the big bang

We are talking about "smart people". We are talking about people who have taken the time and effort to learn what has already been done. I am not saying you aren't smart. I am saying that if you haven't take the time to learn the basics of science, you aren't going to be able to do science.

Science is no different than anything in this respect. What If I decide to start acting like a Marine commando. I can do what I think Marines do. I can run and jump into a prone position (although not very well). I can hide behind corners and look around the way I see on TV.

The fact is if I haven't taken the time and effort and training to become a Marine, I am not going to a Marine. I might pretend to be a Marine, but I wouldn't be at all effective at what a real Marine does (and will fail pretty miserably if I try). Likewise someone without the time effort and training isn't going to be all effective developing scientific theories.



Again, I am not saying "smart", I am saying educated. There is a difference. Educated people have known the Earth was a sphere since at least when Eratosthenes calculated its circumference about 2300 years ago.

Smart people take the time to learn. They learn math. They learn what people before have discovered and how they discovered it. They learn about what is already known and they learn about the techniques to discover more.

People don't just make up science. It is carefully built up using things that were discovered before in a process that has now lasted thousands of years.

You misunderstand the key concept behind relativity. Rosborne used the term "point of view" instead of the more technical term "frame of reference". But it means that every place is actually the center of expanding (changing that to "seems like the center of expanding" is incorrect).

You should at least read about relativity before entering a discussion about this.

You should start by reading this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_special_relativity

Pay special attention to the section called "Reference frames and Galilean relativity: a classical prelude". If you don't understand this, you can't possibly understand what Rosborne is talking about.