# Is Time Speeding Up? Universe Expansion & Past Receding

• |2eason
in summary, the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, and the further we look into the past the slower things are receding from us.
|2eason
Ok, so the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. The further we look into the past the slower things are receding from us, no?
Could it not be that time is speeding up? Has this being discounted, ie is there any other way to tell if time is passing by more quickly now than it was it the past?

(I'm not trying to taut a theory here, just interested to know if it's possible or not)

What would time be speeding up with respect to? Normally one says that time flows at the rate of 1 second / second, which is a tautology. The idea needs some additions before it says anything that makes a testable statement about reality.

Well, it speeds up in relation to itself in the past, in much the same way as a metre on Earth isn't the same as a metre that's close to a black hole (from our perspective).
Of course, if we occupied that metre close to a black hole, we wouldn't be able o tell the difference (assuming no gradient..ok a black hole was an extreme example, lol). In the same way, 1 second a billion years ago would still seem like a second. But measured against our current second, it might be 1.2 seconds.

Hope I'm making sense here. Is the analogy accurate?

If the universe were expanding at a constant rate, but at the same time have a constant effect on time, that could explain the apparent accelerating expansion, could it not?

Ok, let me put it another way. Why is the concept of 'dark energy' even remotely favourable to this idea? Neither are unfalsible. Although I've yet to think of a way to test it, at least I know where to start.

Practically speaking

Time is normally something is measured with respect to. The second is defined in terms of a period relating to the cesium atom. So, if time were changing in any meaningful way, one could measure it by measuring a second via a cesium atom, storing that length, and then measuring the period again, and comparing. Although, if the effect were uniform, the changing of time would affect the storage device, and one would get perfect agreement no matter what. If there is another dimension that time is changing with respect to, we'd probably need to find a way there before measuring any change in time.

As I said, time changes with respect to itself. I see no problem with this since time is treated similar to other dimensions in relativity.

For instance, how do you measure 1 metre? With a ruler? That ruler is a different size under different spatial configurations. In order to determine if a metre here is the same as a metre somewhere else, we need a measure it from our frame of reference. Likewise we can only measure time with respect to past-times from our frame of reference.
The atomic clock example you gave is just like trying to use a ruler, it's doomed to failure.

The 3 spatial dimensions of the universe are literally changing, expanding. I see no reason not to think that time isn't changing as well. Indeed, it seems to me that suggesting it's static is the more extreme position.

Although it's difficult to prove(impossible maybe?) I'm starting to think that the apparent expansion is evidence for it, rather than the concept of dark energy(which flies in the face of accepted physics).

True, the space is expanding.Yet, I believe our REAL TIME doesn't speed up with that but VIRTUAL TIME ( this theory hasn't be proved yet but is an imagination time ). It is claimed that the farther the object in the space from the Earth, the faster it is going away from the Earth. That means these objects are expanding in a greater acceleration.

It is claimed that the farther the object in the space from the Earth, the faster it is going away from the Earth. That means these objects are expanding in a greater acceleration.
That's not quite how it works. True, objects further away are receding faster, that's basic humble stuff due to the expansion of the universe. But, those galaxies furthest from us are expanding slower than they should be and those closest are expanding faster. It's this that suggests the universe is undergoing accelerating expansion. Link.

I contend it's due to an altering of our speed through time, thus the galaxies furthest from us are expanding slower only because time is passing more quickly for us.

(the issue of imaginary time is something unrelated and has to do with complex maths afaik.)

|2eason said:
The 3 spatial dimensions of the universe are literally changing, expanding. I see no reason not to think that time isn't changing as well. Indeed, it seems to me that suggesting it's static is the more extreme position.

This is what I have concluded in the past. After much thinking, I once concluded that if indeed the 3 spatial dementions are expending (becoming less dense) that the demention of time must run faster (WRT the past). But it seems that everybody here rejected this notion, so I guess they must be right. Although, I have seen numerous contradictions here so maybe I was right

The question is; if time is 'speeding up' how would you measure it? With a clock that is also speeding up? If the two clocks are spatially separated then how do you convey the measurement of time at one location with that at the second location? Perhaps that method of conveyance also changes the measurement?

We can only talk about that which can be measured and observed. The observation of gravitational and cosmological red shift may be thought of as the observation that time has speeded up. It is often said that gravitational red shift shows that a clock at the bottom of a gravitational potential well is observed to run more slowly than one at the 'top'. Therefore it might be said that 'time speeds up', as observed by another person, as you climb out of such a well.

The same might be said of cosmological red shift as well. All you can say is that we observe atomic (spectral line frequencies) and other processes (such as the decay rate of a S/N) proceeding more slowly at high red shift, z, than locally - such as in the laboratory (spectra) or in a nearby stellar system (S/N).

Therefore time might be said to 'speed up' cosmologically as well.

But does this mean that there are two components to cosmological red shift? One due to 'time speeding up, as the photon has climbed out of an earlier universe when the average cosmological gravitational field was greater than at present, and one due to a recessional Doppler effect? No, because these are the same cosmological space-time effect, interpreted in two different ways.

Garth

Last edited:
|2eason said:
Ok, let me put it another way. Why is the concept of 'dark energy' even remotely favourable to this idea? Neither are unfalsible. Although I've yet to think of a way to test it, at least I know where to start.

|2eason said:
The 3 spatial dimensions of the universe are literally changing, expanding. I see no reason not to think that time isn't changing as well. Indeed, it seems to me that suggesting it's static is the more extreme position.

eNathan said:
This is what I have concluded in the past. After much thinking, I once concluded that if indeed the 3 spatial dementions are expending (becoming less dense) that the demention of time must run faster (WRT the past). But it seems that everybody here rejected this notion, so I guess they must be right. Although, I have seen numerous contradictions here so maybe I was right
Some of the best experimental evidence for a possible cosmological "acceleration of time" is to be found in Doppler residuals of the Pioneer anomaly.

So then what happens (please ignore how) when we develop FTL technologies and travel to another galaxy? It seems to me that this could have interesting consequences, especially in how we determine the age of the universe. If time is not a constant, we are likely to be way off, especially if it expands faster some places than others.

guevaramartyr said:
So then what happens (please ignore how) when we develop FTL technologies and travel to another galaxy?
I suppose that one might be able to rack-up a ton of frequent flyer miles on such a trip...anything else?
guevaramartyr said:
It seems to me that this could have interesting consequences, especially in how we determine the age of the universe. If time is not a constant, we are likely to be way off, especially if it expands faster some places than others.
That's right, guevaramartyr.

has anyone ever thought of the notion that time flows at a rate that is propotional to the magnitude of the gravitational field in that region. If the rate of time were to be measured by how fast a photon appears to travel, this would suggest that in order for a photon to move at the speed of light, which I am assumingto be a constant. This means time flows slower around large gravitating bodies and fastests when we are infinitely far away from any bodies. Isn't this consistent with relativity, that as we speed up we gain mass an our time flows slower with respect to an inertially fixed observer?

To determine if time speeds up one has to first define timespeed.
One definition of timespeed in SR is $$cd\tau/dt$$ where $$d\tau=dt\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$$, so the timespeed $$v_{time}=\sqrt{c^2-v^2}$$.
It's clear that any variation in the constancy of timespeed should then come from the $$c$$.
In GR a possible definition of timespeed is $$v_{time}=c\sqrt{1-2GM/(rc^2)}$$. Here the variation may come from $$c$$ or $$G$$ ($$r$$ is just a coordinate).
So the real question is in fact if the physical constants are changing over time.
This is indeed a topic that often leads to heavy debate. Nobody seems to have found the answer so far.

Last edited:
that clock idea would literaly take 5million years to get a minute adjustment

Last edited:
abercrombiems02 said:
has anyone ever thought of the notion that time flows at a rate that is propotional to the magnitude of the gravitational field in that region. If the rate of time were to be measured by how fast a photon appears to travel, this would suggest that in order for a photon to move at the speed of light, which I am assumingto be a constant. This means time flows slower around large gravitating bodies and fastests when we are infinitely far away from any bodies. Isn't this consistent with relativity, that as we speed up we gain mass an our time flows slower with respect to an inertially fixed observer?

What you have mentioned is something I've been toying with a while. this would induce the belief that the speed of light is botha constant and a not. if you were measuring the speed of light as it travels near a gravitational body, the location of your observation would induce varying results. speed is only a measurment of how far something travels in the time measured.

disatance/time... if time flowed at different rates through out the universe that would impact the formula. Einstein already proved that motion can effect time as measured.

Be careful - if you allow the standard constants of physics to vary you open a Pandora's box, how do you measure anything? SR & GR allowed previous constants to vary only in a consistent manner and hence they were plausible theories. The fact that Barrow and others are working on a VSL theory today is an indication that perhaps something has to give in the standard theory, but at what price and how are measurements to be made? In particular how do you measure time? With what kind of clock??

Garth

abercrombiems02 said:
has anyone ever thought of the notion that time flows at a rate that is propotional to the magnitude of the gravitational field in that region. If the rate of time were to be measured by how fast a photon appears to travel, this would suggest that in order for a photon to move at the speed of light, which I am assumingto be a constant. This means time flows slower around large gravitating bodies and fastests when we are infinitely far away from any bodies. Isn't this consistent with relativity, that as we speed up we gain mass an our time flows slower with respect to an inertially fixed observer?

If you interpret the rather ambiguous phrase "the rate of time flow" as the metric coefficient g_00 (sometimes called g_tt) in General Relativity, your idea more or less works. Note that distances also change by a factor of g_rr with this interpretation, so a meter close to a planet isn't the same as a meter far away. 'c' will always be a constant number of meters/second for someone deep in a gravity well or far away, by definition.

But you run the risk of confusing someone versed in relativity by talking about the rate of time flow, if you say you are talking about g_00 or g_tt he'll probably understand. (The opposite could be true for a lay audience, but I suspect that they may also be somewhat confused by what you mean by "the rate of time flow").

One technical point: g_00 depends not on the gravitational field, but on the total gravitational potential energy.

pervect you are correct in saying that if we allow "the rate of time flow" to vary as g00 then the metre would vary too. The question as always would be:"If such variation should occur how would you measure it? With a similarly varying clock and ruler?"

Such variation might well occur, but you have to define a non-varying standard against which it could be measured. Note SCC does just this.

Garth

Last edited:
Garth said:
Note SCC does just this.

Garth
Not to derail my own topic, but hasn't the Gravity B probe been going long enough yet to falsify(or otherwise) SCC?

|2eason said:
Not to derail my own topic, but hasn't the Gravity B probe been going long enough yet to falsify(or otherwise) SCC?
I wish it had! The difference between SCC and GR in the geodetic precession measurement is so great that it would have become obvious in the first week. I naturally looked forward to that first week's posting with great excitement, only to read that they would not be publishing any results until the experiment has finished (this summer) and the results fully analysed (next year) - so we wait in anticipation!

The precession of the gyros is measured against a ‘fixed’ star, IM Pegasi, that is tracking across the sky at about 35 milliarcsecs/yr. Another team is accurately tracking the star while the GPB team are accurately tracking the gyros against the star. Only after the experiment has finished will they put the two data sets together and find out what the gyros are really doing.

Now back to the topic…

Garth

Last edited:
What standard is SCC using to measure the varying second?

In GR, we assume a flat background for space-time, and then we "parallel transport" the time vector of a clock from deep in the gravity well to another clock far away from the mass, and compare the two vectors. The parallel transport process is what gives us the relative rate of the clocks, which one can sort-of think of as the "relative rate of time flow". The clock at infinity, far away from the body, serves as the "standard reference"

There are some technical nits, like the fact that parallel transport can depend on path (IIRC with a static field this specific problem doesn't arise, at least I don't think it does).

So that's how standard GR does it, more or less, but I'm a bit curious as to how SCC does it.

SCC has two conformal frames of measurement, the Einstein and the Jordan. Each is based on a conservation principle.

The Einstein frame of SCC is canonical GR, albeit with a scalar field 'in the background' that affects the evolution of the BB universe so that it expands strictly linearly, the(“Freely Coasting”) model. In the Einstein frame energy-momentum is conserved and the masses of atomic particles are constant. Therefore a normal ruler and atomic clock are the method of measuring the universe.

In the Jordan frame, however, energy is conserved and the rest masses of atomic particles varies with their gravitational potential energy, as measured in the Machian centre of mass frame of reference. In this conformal frame the energy of a photon is constant and becomes the standard by which time, length and mass-energy are measured. Gravitational red shift is interpreted as the increase in potential energy, and therefore mass, by the apparatus, rather than as a loss of energy by the photon.

It is in this Jordan conformal frame that the 'rate of time flow', g00, will vary and can be measured by comparison with the frequency (inverse) of a 'standard' photon. Distance is measured by radar - c is constant in this theory, and the photon's energy becomes a measure of mass.

I hope this helps.

Garth

Last edited:
Garth said:
I naturally looked forward to that first week's posting with great excitement, only to read that they would not be publishing any results until the experiment has finished
Garth
It seems obvious to me that they have discovered a discrepancy between observation and GRT, and going to withhold their data until they are absolutely sure of the results!

|2eason said:
It seems obvious to me that they have discovered a discrepancy between observation and GRT, and going to withhold their data until they are absolutely sure of the results!
That would be nice! - if it went the way of SCC of course! The result could be anything .

Garth

oh it was quick to ponder, but i can see a possible reason for the growth expanding faster at further distances. its simple but here's what id say.

its based on this theory, if everything is expanding away from itself. allow each number to represent a star. its simple barbaric and stupid example.
1..2..3..4
to increase in distance apart you must add a greater gap between all of them
1...2...3...4
now if you notice,
#2 moved one space away from #1,
while #3 has moved two additional spaces away from #1
and #4 has moved three additional spaces away from #1

thus in total #4, the farthest away from #1 has moved farthest away.

**********************************************

remember what Einstien said, time is relative to the oberver

this can be possibly discribed. for anyone that gazes upon a fast moving rocket. as the rockets clock adjusts slowly to reflect less time. a trip which took the rocket 9.9 seconds... takes you 10 to watch.

if this ring's true, is it possible that as the universe expands away from itself the gravitational force effecting Earth diminishes... and as the speed of our Earth's time increases very slightly, when we gaze upon other parts of the universe we compare them as slowing?

man i am dam proud of myself for concieving this... please if theirs a flaw i would be happy to hear them

Well i do believe i mentioned 2 of my theories, however my theory of time is yet to be unraveled, maybe all my theories are presumptous and false...

but i do believe i saved my best for last... to another day...

Last edited:
if everything moves away from each other the growth must excell at the fringes,

If you use periods to measure distances, #4 being the fringe of the universe. and #1 reprsenting a relative center.
1..2..3..4

the only way #4 could move at the same rate as the rest, is if only 1 gap existed total between 1, and 4.
1...2..3..4

this would induce the belief that a greater gap, existed between #1 and the other's. however would only result in their shifting. since the gap would never increase between 2-4 and they truelly did not spread apart any further.

just a random visual discription.
as a theoretic example only #1 will be givin the condition of a stationary position. as an example all numbers will be givin an initial starting position of 10meters apart.
#1...#2...#3...#4

if #2 moves 1m/s that means that number #2 will only be required to travel 1m/s to increase its gain. after doing such it spreads farther from #1, but dicreases the actual distance from #3
#1...11apart...#2

now #3 is only 9 away from #2, in order to be able to still spread. it would be required to not only make up the distance but cover and increasing distance in order to spread... this would require 1m/s to regain the same distance and additional speed to actually spread. so thus we will give it the value of 2m/s
similar to #2 both have now covered enough ground at the appropriate speed to increase and spread. the gap between #1 and #2 has spread to 11, while the gap between #2 and #3 has spread 11 also, but it has required a greater speed to achieve that.
#1...11apart...#2...11apart...#3

now #4 is only 8 away from #3 due to #3's movement, so in that time it would be necessary to travel 3m/s to travel fast enough to regain its lead and spread an additional amount.
#1...11apart...#2...11apart...#3...11apart...#4

so it would seem that if it can be succesfully concluded that as the universe expands we spread apart from each other... the actual speed would increase out of neccesity for all parts to continue this expansion. thus it is possible to understand the vast speed of universal expansion, because it is compound growth.

## 1. What evidence supports the idea that time is speeding up?

One piece of evidence is the observation of the universe's expansion. The rate of expansion is increasing, indicating that time is moving faster.

## 2. How does the expansion of the universe support the idea of time speeding up?

The expansion of the universe means that galaxies and other structures are moving away from each other at an accelerating rate. This means that the passage of time is also accelerating.

## 3. Can we physically feel or experience time speeding up?

No, we cannot physically feel or experience time speeding up. Our perception of time remains the same, but the rate at which time passes may be changing on a larger scale.

## 4. What is the theory behind the past receding in the universe?

The past receding theory suggests that as the universe expands, the distance between objects increases, causing light from distant objects to take longer to reach us. This means that we are always seeing objects as they were in the past, and as the universe expands, the past continues to recede from us.

## 5. Is time speeding up a universal phenomenon?

Based on current evidence, it appears that time is speeding up on a universal scale. This means that it is affecting the entire universe, not just our planet or solar system.

Replies
27
Views
2K
Replies
48
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
758
Replies
2
Views
641
Replies
60
Views
2K