Thread: Theory about time and why it 'is' on earth.

Regardless of how fast you move, you are in a constant frame of reference. So time always passes at a constant rate.

The passage of time only differs for objects moving in different frames of reference.

that sounds really convincing

and really, i've been thinking about this for a very long time... thinking exactly the same things as you did...

Originally posted by CryoDragoon
that sounds really convincing

and really, i've been thinking about this for a very long time... thinking exactly the same things as you did...

Oh that's cool Cool and not cool. Now I am not revolutionary But more inventions are allways made simulaniously thoughout the world. Like the book-print machine and the sound recorder.

Other dude: Frame of reference... wut ya meaning? I am not talking about relative time btw. <=/

lol I suck at bringing my ideas to text.

Originally posted by Neruo


lol I suck at bringing my ideas to text.

you're not the only one, trust me

By the way I believe it is way less than milliseconds - like .00001 or less of a second (some crazy small number like that), if I'm not mistaken.

Originally posted by ataraxis
By the way I believe it is way less than milliseconds - like .00001 or less of a second (some crazy small number like that), if I'm not mistaken.

its still something...

Neruo wrote: Maybe at the center of the universe, the central turning point, time would be standing still.[/quote]

There may not be a center of the universe in the first place. some scientists think that the universe has no boundary or center, and it works like a 3d version of asteriods. in asteriods you can zoom off screen in one direction and reappear on the ofther side. In the same way, you could shoot a rocket in one direction in space, it would eventually appear behind you and blow you up (providing nothing was in its way, and was going billions of times fast than the speed of ligth etc). Its only a thought experiment.

Ps:thanks Neruo 4 quoting me. It makes me feel so special after this crap day!

damn! i haven't yet learnt to harness the power of the blue quote box!

Originally posted by dudesuperior
Neruo wrote: Maybe at the center of the universe, the central turning point, time would be standing still.

Like Bradybaker said, time will never appear to stand still for you. Regardless of whether you stand on the surface of the earth, hover near the event horizon of a black hole, or blast off in a spaceship at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, to you, time will pass at the same rate. As your relative speed approaches the speed of light or as you move in the vicinity of a strong gravitational well, everything in your frame of reference slows down, including your bodily chemical and electrical reactions and therefore also your thought processes.

If you were moving in a spaceship at constant velocity near the speed of light, you would look outside of your spaceship window and see everything moving in extremely slow motion, but everything within your spaceship would appear normal.

Hope that clarifies things.

Dude superior: Just press the 'post with qoute' button, or however it's called, or use Qoute button on the left of this typing screen I am using now, or use [ qoute ] ... [ /qoute ] with out the spaces.

And astroids allso has a center. I agree it's unlikely there is a boundary, but with the theory of the big-bang e there Is a center of the universe where it started. There is a theory that the universe's boundaries keep 'growing'.. But It might be only the boundaries of the material, like beond that point there is only nothingness. Or maybe that it is 'expanding' in a 4th demension... like... yeah.

I do think there is a center.

Originally posted by Peregrinus


Like Bradybaker said, time will never appear to stand still for you. *Regardless of whether you stand on the surface of the earth, hover near the event horizon of a black hole, or blast off in a spaceship at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, to you, time will pass at the same rate. *As your relative speed approaches the speed of light or as you move in the vicinity of a strong gravitational well, everything in your frame of reference slows down, including your bodily chemical and electrical reactions and therefore also your thought processes.

If you were moving in a spaceship at constant velocity near the speed of light, you would look outside of your spaceship window and see everything moving in extremely slow motion, but everything within your spaceship would appear normal.

Hope that clarifies things.

Ohyeah lol I kind of forget about that XD

But without all the 'point of view shit' it might has a point this theory. If the universe spins, and speed seems to unfluence time like in space shuttles the speed of time (objectively) in like the center of the 'spin' will differ. Right?

Originally posted by Neruo
But without all the 'point of view shit' it might has a point this theory. If the universe spins, and speed seems to unfluence time like in space shuttles the speed of time (objectively) in like the center of the 'spin' will differ. Right?

The tangential velocity of an object on the surface of a rotating object will be higher than that of an object at its center, yes. However, rotation also requires acceleration, and as soon as you have acceleration in a reference frame, it is no longer inertial and the situation is immediately complicated. The effects of time dilation are still present, but with the addition of mathematical terms to deal with the non-inertial frame, the magnitude of those effects are not as easily determined.

Edit: I forgot to add that this applies only to planets, starts, and such objects with a defined center. As the universe has no center, this spinning metaphor does not apply.

Originally posted by Neruo
. I agree it's unlikely there is a boundary, but with the theory of the big-bang e there Is a center of the universe where it started.

The big bang theory states that the universe is expanding, but not necessarily from a central point. If the universe is 'flat,' (which it almost certainly is) it is expanding from all points in the universe. It's like a balloon being blown up. It expands from all points on its 2D surface, meaning that 2 small dots close to each other will drift apart as it gets bigger.

What i'm trying to get at her is that is soon as the universe came into existance, it started to expand from all points, therefore a center ceases to exist. This is the reason why all the galaxys are expanding away from each other.

Thanks for the quote tips by the way - hope i got it right this time

Originally posted by dudesuperior



The big bang theory states that the universe is expanding, but not necessarily from a central point. If the universe is 'flat,' (which it almost certainly is) it is expanding from all points in the universe. It's like a balloon being blown up. It expands from all points on its 2D surface, meaning that 2 small dots close to each other will drift apart as it gets bigger.

What i'm trying to get at her is that is soon as the universe came into existance, it started to expand from all points, therefore a center ceases to exist. This is the reason why all the galaxys are expanding away from each other.

Thanks for the quote tips by the way - hope i got it right this time *

Yeah you qouted right this time

Hmmm I see, it expanded everywhere... Doesn't seem logic to me.. but well...
But with central-point expanding everything can allso keep moving apart. The universe is streched out. Like there is a constant 'flow' from the center to the 'edge' (non-existant) of the universe.

And Peregrinus I have no Idea what you are saying, so I guess you must be right and stuff.

I guess this theory only works if you believe the center-point-big-bang-rotation-theory-stuff

I guess the only way were ever going to fing out whats really going on out there in deep space is to build a massive rocket and go exploring- and that seems a looooooooooong way off.

Originally posted by dudesuperior
I guess the only way were ever going to fing out whats really going on out there in deep space is to build a massive rocket and go exploring- and that seems a looooooooooong way off.

Long is the biggest understatement ever

As discussed in your topic now. Even with lightspeed travelling the chance we will see it is unlikely <=/ But in theory we could get everywhere. But it would take a journey of like 1000000 years

Ok then lets just say that the rocket has interstellar ram jets, warp capablility and can harness zero-point energy. How's that?

Originally posted by Neruo
And *Peregrinus I have no Idea what you are saying, so I guess you must be right and stuff.

Don't assume that just because someone is incomprehensible, they are correct. Usually the opposite is true. What part doesn't make sense, and I'll try to explain it better. (Or, if you really don't care, just say so.)

Originally posted by Peregrinus
What part doesn't make sense

Perhaps a better question would be what parts DO make sense! (Too many long words for me!)

Originally posted by dudesuperior
Perhaps a better question would be what parts DO make sense! (Too many long words for me!) *

That doesn't really help But I'll try to define those technical terms:

tangential velocity: Measured in meters per second, this is the "sideways" velocity of an object undergoing circular motion. Imaging tying a ball to a string and spinning it in a circle above your head. Get it going at a constant rate of rotation and then cut the string. The ball will fly away in a straight line perpendicular to your string. The speed at which it flies away is its tangential velocity (well, velocity is speed plus direction, technically). The ball has a tangential velocity even before you release it by snipping the string, btw, but releasing it from the acceleration of rotation allows you to visualize it better.
reference frame: This one's pretty simple - it's your frame of reference. If you are sitting at your computer and your friend is sitting next to you, you are likely in the same reference frame. If, however, you are sitting at your computer and your friend drives by your house in his car, you’re in different reference frames.
inertial reference frame: A reference frame in constant motion (not accelerating or decelerating) and away from strong gravitational influences (i.e. not near a planet, star, black hole, etc.)

I think that's all the "big words" I used. Does it make more sense now?

I don't care

Nah ok I do a bit. But can't you sum all that up in a easy way. Like a McTheory-burger. Nice and easy 8)

Thanks that makes more sense

Originally posted by Neruo
But can't you sum all that up in a easy way. Like a McTheory-burger. Nice and easy *8)

Nope

Lmfao @ Mc Theory Burger.

Time is a measure of action. If there was no action, there would be no time.
Thus, calling time a different dimension or anything at all besides a mere concept (an idea) is, as I see it, senseless.
Now, another dimension could exist with such properties and what not but relating the concept of "time" to it doesn't seem very correct to me.