A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 11th 03, 02:41 AM
John David Schmidt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe

This is an outgrowth of an idea that has been bugging me for a while. I am
curious if anyone has heard this theory before or if there is a flaw in it.

Time, as we perceive it, is of course merely a function of our internal
biological clocks. If you slow down time, you would never know because all
yours ways of measuring it would change.

We also all know that time slows down for objects accelerating and for
objects in gravity fields as well (which are different aspects of the same
thing, apparently). That mean the gravity of the Earth, of the Sun, of the
Galaxy and every other object in the Universe! In other words, all objects
in the Universe are subjected to a "universal gravity" (same force that is
opposing the Universe's expansion) and therefore time for all objects in the
Universe must be slowed! (relative to what? Not sure, yet it must be true)
Actually this universal gravity must be changing other constants (like the
mass of a Proton for one) changing many of the physical laws of the
universe.

OK, it turns out that under intense gravitation time can slow dramatically.
For example it is calculated that a black hole never forms a singularity
because time has slowed down so far that the particles never quite collapse
(it takes forever, but the event horizon is created).

So, how old is the Universe. Well from our point of view it is 13.5 billion
years old, but it must have taken an infinite amount of time to unfold for
the same reason a black hole never forms a singularity. So the Universe has
always existed, nothing came before and perhaps nothing will come after.

Has anyone ever heard this before?




  #2  
Old August 11th 03, 03:22 AM
Andrew McKay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 01:41:19 GMT, "John David Schmidt"
wrote:

Time, as we perceive it, is of course merely a function of our internal
biological clocks. If you slow down time, you would never know because all
yours ways of measuring it would change.


That coincides with thoughts I've had in the past.

We seem to take it for granted that time is a fixed constant. I'm not
sure I understand why this is the case - but there's an element of
doubt probably only because my mind isn't powerful enough to
comprehend alternatives.

Andrew

Do you need a handyman service? Check out our
web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk
  #3  
Old August 11th 03, 05:23 AM
J. Scott Miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John David Schmidt wrote:

OK, it turns out that under intense gravitation time can slow dramatically.
For example it is calculated that a black hole never forms a singularity
because time has slowed down so far that the particles never quite collapse
(it takes forever, but the event horizon is created).


A black hole will form in a fraction of a second after a core begins to
collapse. We, on the other hand, looking at the event (assuming we could see
through the overlying structure of the star itself - but I digress), would see
the event taking a long time. That is our perception of the event due to the
effect gravity has on the light traveling to us from the event as it unfolds.
But, like it or not, the black hole is established in the universe within a
fraction of a second after the core begins to collapse.


So, how old is the Universe. Well from our point of view it is 13.5 billion
years old, but it must have taken an infinite amount of time to unfold for
the same reason a black hole never forms a singularity. So the Universe has
always existed, nothing came before and perhaps nothing will come after.


I think that your misperception of time flow comes into play here as well. You
see, we have the advantage in this case of measuring the rate at which galaxies
are moving away from each other and can run the movie backwards to establish a
time when all matter was closer than it is today. In the big bang models, space
and time unfolded at time rates faster than the speed of light (no problem here
with relativity as there is no restriction on the expansion rate of time and
space, just the motion of physical objects and light through it). So, running
the clock backwards from the perceive expansion rate gives a time that is not
related to the time it "seems" that a black hole would form. In this latter
case, we are perceiving the passage of time within space-time. In the other
case we are observing the passage of the expansion of space-time itself.

  #4  
Old August 11th 03, 11:43 AM
Fred Williams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Andrew McKay wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 01:41:19 GMT, "John David Schmidt"
wrote:

Time, as we perceive it, is of course merely a function of our
internal
biological clocks. If you slow down time, you would never know
because all yours ways of measuring it would change.


That coincides with thoughts I've had in the past.

We seem to take it for granted that time is a fixed constant. I'm
not sure I understand why this is the case - but there's an element
of doubt probably only because my mind isn't powerful enough to
comprehend alternatives.


It all depends on your frame of reference. Time is not universally
consistent when you start considering extreme conditions of speed and
gravity. So when scientists say, "the Age of the Universe" there may
be a number of assumptions that are associated with the concept. I'm
sure I don't know what they all might be, so in fact none of us may
have a mind that is powerful enough to comprehend ... the true
reality, let alone the alternatives. (;-))


"Observers in any given reference frame may assume that their time is
flowing at a constant rate of one second per second." ---- Can we
assume that this is a trivial statement?

--
Regards
Fred

Remove FFFf to reply, please
  #5  
Old August 11th 03, 03:19 PM
John David Schmidt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

No, that is the strange thing about time dilation. Many people get confused
since the "explanation" involves talking about gravity slowing photons.
Actually it is really true that time really slows down. Of course when your
"time" slows down you can't tell. Time is only consistent in a non
accelerated frame of reference. It took me a long time to get this, yes the
motion of photons make it "look like" time slowed down, yet it is the same
thing as time really slowing down.

In other words if gravity really didn't slow down time (or rather alter the
frame of reference). You wouldn't be able to find a time difference between
clocks on Earth and in orbit.


"J. Scott Miller" wrote in message
...
John David Schmidt wrote:

OK, it turns out that under intense gravitation time can slow

dramatically.
For example it is calculated that a black hole never forms a singularity
because time has slowed down so far that the particles never quite

collapse
(it takes forever, but the event horizon is created).


A black hole will form in a fraction of a second after a core begins to
collapse. We, on the other hand, looking at the event (assuming we could

see
through the overlying structure of the star itself - but I digress), would

see
the event taking a long time. That is our perception of the event due to

the
effect gravity has on the light traveling to us from the event as it

unfolds.
But, like it or not, the black hole is established in the universe within

a
fraction of a second after the core begins to collapse.


So, how old is the Universe. Well from our point of view it is 13.5

billion
years old, but it must have taken an infinite amount of time to unfold

for
the same reason a black hole never forms a singularity. So the Universe

has
always existed, nothing came before and perhaps nothing will come after.


I think that your misperception of time flow comes into play here as well.

You
see, we have the advantage in this case of measuring the rate at which

galaxies
are moving away from each other and can run the movie backwards to

establish a
time when all matter was closer than it is today. In the big bang models,

space
and time unfolded at time rates faster than the speed of light (no problem

here
with relativity as there is no restriction on the expansion rate of time

and
space, just the motion of physical objects and light through it). So,

running
the clock backwards from the perceive expansion rate gives a time that is

not
related to the time it "seems" that a black hole would form. In this

latter
case, we are perceiving the passage of time within space-time. In the

other
case we are observing the passage of the expansion of space-time itself.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Breakthrough in Cosmology Kazmer Ujvarosy Space Shuttle 3 May 22nd 04 09:07 AM
GUT-CHARGE AND PHOTON IN AN EXPANDING UNIVERSE GRAVITYMECHANIC2 Astronomy Misc 1 October 30th 03 04:33 AM
GUT-CHARGE AND PHOTON IN AN EXPANDING UNIVERSE GRAVITYMECHANIC2 Astronomy Misc 0 October 19th 03 09:31 PM
PLANETS ORBIT THE SUN TO CONSERVE TOTAL ENERGY GRAVITYMECHANIC2 Astronomy Misc 2 October 14th 03 08:13 AM
GUT-CHARGE,AND PHOTON IN AN EXPANDING UNIVERSE GRAVITYMECHANIC2 Astronomy Misc 0 August 30th 03 12:29 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.