# Time a Velocity not a Dimension?

1. May 17, 2004

### Francium

A New Theory of Time

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Theory is based on the notation that the reason we experince time in a smooth motion is because we are also travelling in a smooth motion. if we took the centre of our galaxy as the origin of a scale and calculated our speed relative to it then we could design a scale of relativity, and calculate a the time for everything within our galaxy just according to its velocity. SO time is not a dimension, it is a velocity.

Time is affected by your speed relative to something else. The speed limit is the speed of light. But what is the minimum speed limit? If you were to travel at the speed of light, time would stop. I also beleive that if you could travel approximately 0ms-1 relative to everything else then time would also stop. But where would this place be?

Imagine the Earth, people at the north pole travels slower than people at the equator but they have the same day. This is a flaw, becasue time is affected by tiny amounts we just dont notice it. The interesting thing is that a sphere is the only object where you cant experience the same time (velocity) at any 2 points at any one time, you have to take into account the velocity that the earth is travelling around the sun and the velocity that the sun is travelling around the milky way and possibly the velocity the milkly way is travelling around an axis of the universe.

The minimium speed limit came from thinking where could i physically travel slower so i thought the slowest point on the earth relative to the centre of the milky way must be the centre or the earth. Then i thought goto the centre of the sun and your velocity is even slower, then the galaxy and eventually the universe. My idea is that times minimum speed limit is at the centre of the universe. Experiment: If we were to travel to the centre of the universe and you were to experience time ( at 0ms-1 time stops like at lightspeed) then you could argue that your still in motion therefore there must be a larger body exterior to our universe in which we rotate around. So this experiement could tell you if there was anything beyond our universe without actually going there. But it will be a long time before anyone will be able to carry out this experiment.

I hope this theory makes sense, and i appreciate any flaws anyone can find from it.
This is all my original work.

Christopher Hatchard

2. May 17, 2004

### baffledMatt

If this was possible you would experience a lot of crazy stuff, but time would still tick by relentlously for you (as in if you had a wristwatch on it would still appear to you to be working normally).

My big toe is in fact the centre of the universe as I observe it to be stationary and everything else revolves around it.

How would I know if I was not experiencing time? I guess if I had a wristwatch on I could check it every second or so and if it stops I know I'm at the centre of the universe...

Matt

3. May 17, 2004

### baffledMatt

Ack... Am I going loopy or have you just started two threads with the same post?

a very baffledMatt

4. May 17, 2004

### Francium

relativity is based on your personal experience against anothers, my idea is to use one point in the universe to base everything around so you can calculate everyones realtive speed using just longitude, latitude and circular motion on a huge scale. Alot will be needed but it could be possible for the future. We can only see a small percentage of the entire universe because alot of it is blindfolded by dust in space (milkyway) so in reality no one can really tell you the shape of the universe. I beleive it to be spherical, i mean why not everything else around us is!!

5. May 17, 2004

### baffledMatt

Ok, well good luck. Just as long as you realise that there is no measurement you can make which will tell you whether or not you are at the 'centre of the universe' - whatever that means.

I still prefer using my big toe for all my calculations.

Matt

6. May 17, 2004

### baffledMatt

Ooops, to be more specific, that's the one on my left foot.

I'd hate for you to make a mistake due to my terrible tendancy for ambiguity.

Matt

7. May 17, 2004

### Francium

Well i think that from an 18 year old student from essex, theorys about space-time should e questioned and not just dismissed for your big toe that obviously is the most important thing to you. id rather talk science, show me some evidence for my flaws. and you say we cant measure the centre. well if you were to create an imaginary 3d space that was before the bigbang and showed where the big bang occured within that model thats where i would call the centre of the univere. the point of singularity where the bigbang occured. the only point where everything and i mean everything is moving away from you. Anywhere else in the universe there must be matter travelling towards you. in other words the centre is where space is being stretched away from you in every direction at a constant speed.( im not sure if the universe expands constantly in all directions or with fluctuations according to the density of matter ( gravity). But i think you get the genereal picture. just saying that my idea is rubbish isnt gud enough from anyones perspective.

8. May 17, 2004

### baffledMatt

Yes, you are absolutely correct!!! Fortunately this attitude is still very much encouraged in the UK.

Ok, sorry about the sarcasm - I get carried away sometimes. It was a poor attempt to emphasise the fact that any point in the universe could equally be called the 'centre'. Einstein's relativity principle tells us this, along with the fact that the universe has - by definition - no boundaries. So, asking 'where is the centre of the universe?' is equivalent to asking what is the centre of the surface of a sphere. I don't think this question is well defined.

But that's the thing. As far as we know (which is admittedly not much!) everything, including time and space, was all created at the big bang. There is no sense in saying 'where was the big bang' as it was everywhere - the universe was simply very very small at the time in a manner of speaking. Does it make sense to talk about whatever is 'outside' the universe? Probably not but I will leave that to metaphysics.

This is not true. The whole Hubble expansion thing tells us that in every point in space you will observe all other matter (well, apart from small local fluctuations) travelling away from you. The interpretation is that it is not the galaxies etc moving per se, but the space in between expanding. There is a very commonly used analogy of drawing galaxies on a balloon and observing what happens when you blow it up. Everything is seen to move away from everything else but there is no 'centre'. This is surprisingly close to what is believed to be happening to the universe (surprising considering my abject dislike of analogies :) )

you're right, sorry about that. I'm glad you didn't accept my answer on the face of it - I think this is a very useful attitude to have in science.

Matt

9. May 17, 2004

### jcsd

Basically Francium what you are trying to do is apply an arbitary transformation to the way that we describe the unievrse using relativity, if you managed this sucesully all you would come up with is an equivalent, less intutive, less practical version of the formalism of relativity.

No point in the unievrse can be identified as the origin of the big bang or if you prefer every point in the unievrse can be identifie as the point of origin of the big bang.

10. May 17, 2004

### Francium

What you are all saying is that we live in a UNIverse. My idea is that perhaps the picture is even bigger than all you scientists think. we live in a multiverse. if that were true and i dont see why not? is it really that unbeleivable for you to understand? Weight is relative to Earth (N), so why cant time be relative to a centre ? just because we dont experince it in everyday life on earth doesnt mean it doesnt happen, what im saying is if theres a bigger picture to the whole lot then i think my idea might be reasonable suggestion. Also the universe is spinning on an axis. like the earth. and that would account for the shapes of galaxys. erm.. although the universe must be expanding or perhaps growing at a constant velocity in all directions. that would make sense imagine a stones ripples in a pond. it always seems to be constant so perhaps in the multiverse these set rules may also play a part to the evolution of galaxys. in other words on the tiny end, these fluctations of growth are always constant. they change but grow at a constant rate.

ill try be less vague.
next time

11. May 17, 2004

### Staff: Mentor

Basic grammar would be a good start:

'I'll try to be less vague next time.'

12. May 18, 2004

### Francium

**** off american twat

13. May 19, 2004

### Cecil

Your flaw is here. The centre of the sun is the slowest place relative to the center of the galaxy because the sun is revolving around it. The galaxy is not revolving around the "centre of the universe"; rather, it is moving away from all other galaxies, like raisins in an expanding muffin.

14. May 21, 2004

### Noah

The universe is too big for us to determine, yet, if all the galaxies are revolving around a center. Logically, if there were a big bang, there would exist a perfect center where everything is moving away from. There is no reason to believe that the galaxies wouldn't simulate an orbital effect as they move away from each other. More than likely, the original 'thing' (I'm not going to call it a singularity bacause I don't believe in the existence of such things; it's an absurd attempt to fill in the blanks) that existed to cause the big bang was spinning (just like everything else in space). So the explosion would be affected by that. Also going by that concept, the universe (when I say universe I mean the matter contained in all of space; not actually the far reaches of space itself) would be a subtle disc shape. Of course we have nothing to see to the end of the closest edge yet.

15. May 21, 2004

### Noah

Why would velocity affect the time relationship between two things? That's kind of something I've always wondered about relativity. If something is going twice as fast then it goes twice as far in the same time. If time slowed down as you went faster then everything would appear to be moving the same speed. Light would not experience time (since it's moving at light speed). So, depending on your perspective, light would either not move at all or would move infinitely fast (due to no time taking place during it's journey from point A to point B). I personally believe that time (and space, I suppose) is constant in all areas of the universe.

I think you overlooked how the center of the earth is not the slowest moving point. It just has the most constant speed. Think of the wheel of a car going down the road. The center is moving the same speed as the rest of the car. The point of the tire touching the road is not moving at all since it is being pulled backwards at the same rate that the car is moving forward. The top of the tire would move twice as fast as the rest of the car (think of the cars movement as the earth's revolution around the sun.