Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Time is a what-what?

  1. Apr 29, 2003 #1
    time is a what-what?
    We know that time slows down in 'gravity'.
    A clock on the top floor of the Empire State Building will run faster than the same clock if it were down on the street below, for example. Einstein said that gravity is curved space. Or curved space-time.
    By combining space with time, he made the single entity: spacetime. So, curving space, is curving time.
    What creates gravity?
    Mass does.
    What is mass?
    To me, its anything that travels slower than the 'speed of light', or Einstein's Constant or simply 'c'.
    Which is the speed that light travels in a vacuum - 186,000 miles per second.
    (So, for example, electrons and all leptons , since they have m, would be composed of 'things', plural.)
    (While I believe that quarks will be found to be massless.)
    So, gravity is curved 'time', too.
    We know that time isn't mass, since mass or 'm'', curves 'space+time', and this curve or warped space is called gravity- so, time isn't gravity.
    Well, could time be energy?
    There are four forces:
    Since gravity is simply a curving of space, its not a force, so, count gravity out.
    The weak force?
    Many consider the EM force and the weak force to be the 'same'- calling it the Electroweak force. OK, lets count the weak force out.
    That only leaves two forces, 'EM' and the strong force - using 'Occhams Razor' , a simple idea created by a monk, which says: 'The simplest answer is preferred' , I believe that the strong force and the EM force are also the 'same'.
    And there is only one force: EM
    (Electric and magnetic)
    (Actually Occhams Razor is alittle different, but the above is how I've seen Physicists state it)
    So, is the EM force time?
    Einstein said that E=MC², or simply E=M.
    Does E=m, and E=t?
    E=M/t or E=Mt or.......
    Too confusing!...'Wheres Occham?!'
    So, I think that E=M is enough, thereby letting E out of the search for t (time).
    Whats left?
    Theres vacuum energy....
    Where is it?
    Its everywhere, throughout space.
    Einstein said that 'space' is 'space+time'.
    So, time is there, and we know that time is also everywhere.
    Maybe space is time?
    That brings me back to the 'aether' or 'ether'.
    The greatest inventor of all time, Nikola Tesla, said that he based all of his inventions on the existence of the ether.
    If its good enough for him, its sure good enough for me...what is it?
    In essence, Tesla believed that its not the 'air' that is 'air' and the 'things' in it that are 'solid'- -But that 'the ether' is solid, and everything in it is 'air' - to it!
    OK, hes nuts, right?
    But, he based ALL of his inventions on this? RADIO, REMOTE CONTROL, RADAR, etc?!
    How could we, and everything we own, touch, eat, hold, be nothing but 'air'?
    Back to Einstein: E=MC²
    All matter, all mass, is simply energy.
    Everything is made from atoms....
    And each atom is made of a nucleus surrounded by orbiting electrons.
    But, if you were to enlarge a single atom, to be the size of 30 football filelds, the nucleus would only take up the area that you would stand in, while the electrons would be only as thick as a human hair.
    Well, whats in the rest of that entire area?
    Nothing.... everything is mostly 'nothing'.
    And, I believe, we will discover that everything is REALLY nothing; quarks being massless.
    OK, so everthing is energy.... so what is time?
    If we use the Sherlock Holmes method, 'Whatever is left, no matter how absurd, is the correct answer'.
    Is matter time?
    Is the EM force time?
    Is gravity time?
    Is vacuum energy time?
    Einstein said that space is 'spacetime'.
    Tesla said that 'space' is a solid....
    Planets have different time flows depending on their mass.- Time runs faster in space away from a planets gravity.- Time stops in a black holes gravity.-
    The more mass the slower time -The less mass the faster time.
    So, a planets mass affects time.
    Thus 'time' must be real.. it must 'be' something.
    What does a planet affect?
    A planet creates gravity... which is warped spacetime....and...According
    to Tesla 'space' is just a solid....
    The conclusion: time is 'vacuum energy'- virtual particles or as some call it 'the ether'.
    Einstein created a 'cosmological constant' or /\.
    Which is the energy of space, and everywhere.
    And he later called this his 'biggest blunder'.
    But now, today, Physicists are wondering if his 'biggest blunder' wasn't in fact his 'greatest achievement'- because space IS filled w/vacuum energy- it exists.
    This is why I say: /\ = t
    Remember that Einstein didn't dismiss the ether, he only said that its not necessary- to make computations.
    When you think about it, nothing can have a 'restrictive speed' if it travels through 'nothing'.
    There would be no 'c'.
    We wouldn't have gravity on earth 9.8m/s/s.
    At least thats the way I see it.....

  2. jcsd
  3. May 27, 2003 #2
    Fascinating, I'm not sure I get it that time is ether, it then makes me ask what is ether? Anyway here's my view on it:
    Time is a word we use to define the motion of atoms in the clock hand from point a to point b, usually it takes the same time for the clock hand to traverse that distance and so we call it a minute of time having passed, but add a little heat to the winding spring and the next minute may pass a bit faster (maybe only a 1000th of a second), so you see time is relative and the universe doesn't care about the past or future it is only atoms moving about at various speeds acting upon causes.
    How does gravity slow time? In my view it doesn't so much as it is slowing the atomic motion of the atom by forcing it to move in a way counter to it's heat or kinetic motion, but gravity is so weak that the differences in time of a clock in space to a clock on Earth are extremely small, however move an atom at near the speed of light and it is being forced to move counter it's kinetic energy in a big way and so time slows down for that atom, that is it will try to maintain it's existence such that the electron is not moving around the proton at near the speed of light to reach the speed of light and explode to become light. In other words if an electron is moving around a proton at 1/10th the speed of light and the whole atom is moving at 99% the speed of light the electon for some reason, maybe ether, try to counter it's motion and avoid becomming light, so basically the electron and proton will move very slowly at whatever they are doing and the clock hand will move very slowly as a consequence.
    Does that make any sense?
  4. May 28, 2003 #3
    S =T*C
    S - space;
    T - time;
    C - speed of light; it is constant i.e. number.

    The Space is a manifestation of time.
  5. May 29, 2003 #4

    I never heard that Tesla beleived that Aether was solid, and that it treated objects such as air and electrons as "air", but that creates enough questions, that It might solve some of my questions, although i don't have the answers yet because i just learned these questions 5 minutes ago.
    So, i will tell you this, I have known that Telsa not only believed in aether, but he also believed in a lot of Hindu systems of physics such as prana/akasha.

    Essentially prana could be seen as the life force of everything, but this is way to wierd for scientists, so it is better to say it is the kinetic energy of everything, such as a baseball in motion, a fire burning, or electricity travelling through someone's body. It could alos be seen as the microwaves that cook your TV dinner, and the power of Jet Li's kick.

    Akasha, would be, as einstien has stated, the matter part of matter energy, it would also consist of the "potential energy" in some respects.
    Akasha, is in a way, all five elements, solid, liquid, gas, plasma, and spacetime, which would have formerly been earth, water, air, fire, and aether.

    If you have ever studied science and questionable science online, (instead of what's in the text books at school), you would have learned a couple of things, possibly including the following:

    Space-time-mass: a complete theory about what causes gravity (the flow of spacetime/aether), antigravity (the opposite flow of aether), and how photons evaporate, and spacetime condensates (super novas, and black holes). This would also explain to you the idea of the expansion of the universe, and the idea of galaxies accelerating away from each other (lower energy is caused by a release of energy, the release of energy is represented by the release of photons, photons evaporate, creating spacetime, inflating the universe like a balloon)

    Variable lightspeed: Einstien was a fool in this area, as many of our top scientists, ranging from those in NASA (as recently as 2002, and starting in 1999) to those in Australia, are observing proof of light and EM signals moving at more than 300,000 km/s. They are all saying that the speed of light is variable, depending on what they dont know (Tesla knew: Aether Density), but one group says that the speed of light was at least e11 times faster at the beginning of the universe, and the other group (NASA) says when you get outside our solar system, away from celestial bodies, the speed of light jumps, to at least 1 million times faster (3e14+),

    Which creates a whole bunch of paradoxes. Number one, if the wave decay used to estimate the age of the universe is based upon about 15 billion lightyears, and if the current evidence points closer to 13.6 billion lightyears radius for the universe, and the speed is not constant, that means the universe could be much much bigger, or that the universe could be much much younger, which would throw carbon dating out of whack, because the ice age, much less dinasaurs, or the planet, would be older than the universe, by a huge factor.
    It gets even more screwed up when you count in the evolutionist theory, that requires millions of years for life to evolve...

    Yup, that's a monkey wrench many scientists want to Hide.. but Tesla knew. What a lunatic. what a god.
  6. May 29, 2003 #5
    Obseved faster than light travel? Ok that's enough wierdness for me today.
  7. May 30, 2003 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The cracks are deep in these pots, for sure.

    - Warren
  8. Jun 5, 2003 #7

    funny, i thought it was a "when-when?".
  9. Jun 5, 2003 #8
    no, but seriously folks, all this is confusing. first off, i note that you are quoting mr. eintein. well, you must know then that one of the first things einstein did in the field of physics was to disprove the notion of an ether. he said that one would not have to have the idea of an ether (which has never been observed anyway!) at all if one were willing to abandon the idea of absolute time. this line of thinking lead him to the conclusion that many of us know, the Theory of Reletivity.

    and also, as the lovely ms. shintashi (i assume it's a ms.! correct me if i'm wrong!) said, you have many other irregularities in your line of thinking which is overall very intriging, but i think you should slow down and think about what some of your statements would imply.
  10. Jun 6, 2003 #9
    or was it absolute position? i don't know, but TESLA, i looked up your profile and i think you are reading way to much into the works and ideas of mr. tesla (the real one). the notion of an ether (as i said) is no longer needed in modern physics and 'controling it' is not possible.
  11. Jun 8, 2003 #10
    i think modern physics is a sham.

    These scientists who postulate theories about light speed, spacetime, and vacuum, are morons. Its like a religion, " Well you have to believe this, which allows you to believe this, and this, and this... "

    Lets look at some basic principles here. Einstien's evidence of Aether non existance relied ENTIRELY upon the Michelson-Morley Experiment.






    Effectively, scientists are looking at more and more ways, especially through Hubble, and realizing that lightspeed is not constant. Now any person with 4 or more years of brain washing at Po Dunk University can formulate another mathematical theory to "save Relativity", to close their eyes, and deny reality, but I believe this last 80 years or so of brainwashing has had to come to an end.

    The Universe is made of Jello.

    Sound doesn't travel through aether as a wave /because it is a wave of matter/. If you observe very carefully the jello theory, that all matter is nothing more than a wave in aether, you will realize, that sound, does infact, cause dim fluctations in the atmosphere, which disrupts the volumetric displacement of matter, creating small disruptions in your precious non aether spacetime.

    For the brilliant souls out there who still dont get it, let us try it another way. The Ocean of water has waves, those waves do not appear to affect an airplane at 30,000 feet, infact, if you detected for them, you would probably fail. But those waves, are moving, the air, is slightly moving, and the plane is slightly moving even less.

    400 years ago, we had no way of detecting X -rays, or UV rays, or many other rays, it doesn't mean they didn't exist, it just means our detection methods... SUCKED.

    I noticed that Darwin's theory requires millions of years of evolution to create its missing links, between dinosaurs, moneys, and men, and billions of years to create life from nothing. Of course, that experiment to reproduce enzymes never actually produced life, and scientists still cannot produce life from inanimate objects. That doesn't mean our children's text books (as well as your own, probably, if your under 60), don't still imply that /we can indeed create life from chemicals, thus proving evolution theory/.

    Doubt me ? do a search on the net for "evolution: scientists create life".

    According to the Australian Physicist, who observed what Hubble observed, the speed of light may have fluctuated... No, I dont mean the sub frequency of some mathematical non existant measurement which allows a relativitist to say "well its still only going lightspeed overall..."... I mean the literal meters-per second-constant was changing.
    No light speed constant means no radio wave decay accuracy in measuring universal age. Remember that experiment where they assumed "13.7 billion light years radius" ? or where they assumed the constant speed of light and counted backwards ?

    Now lets look at carbon Dating,


    Which is inaccurate (according to my retired physics proffessor from 10 years ago) to more than 4000 years. Well, according to the publically acceped Carbon dating and other radioactive methods, there are parts of the earth which are older than the sun, there are parts of human civilzation, which are older than the dinosaurs, and there are stars in the heavens older than the universe...

    Yeah, my jello theory makes me a crack pot, but just you wait and see, in 20 years, they will be calling Darwin and Eistein crackpots, and build a statue to Tesla.

    Why all the controversy ?

    Who would possibly be wrong, if hubble telescopes, tesla theories, and creationist dogma prove accurate after all ?

    1: Athiests
    2: Eistien
    3: all Vaccuum theories (which do not believe in teleportation or FTL)
    4: Darwin
    5: Hawking ? (No idea, no one ever reads his books, they only buy them)
  12. Jun 8, 2003 #11
    well, your point is taken. there are many people willing to believe everything they hear in science and to some it's becoming a bit of a religon but you cannnot forsake the intire scientific process for this alone. what we know we are pretty sure about. and we know what we know from unquestionable observations. the idea of an ether is just as much out dated as the idea of spirits befouling the body. it's not just that we didn't observe it, there's really no reason to have it. it is a classic example of the well defined prinsiple known as Occhams Razor doing its job.
    but the 'postulation about theories is no different than the postulation that i've seen you do and tesla do. but once they reach a conclusion they will test it and if it doesn't pass,it is discarded. we also don't accept what has been told to us unquestioningly, all the time old theories are rewriten or removed if they are not useful. if one is unable to accept this they'll find themselfs holding on (in the same fanatic sort of way) to ridiculous ideas about the universe (like the classic turtles all the way down theory).
    i'd say, w're doing the best we can with the limited resources we have in understanding the universe, and we are doing pretty well.

    i have bought many books by Hawkings and read everyone of them. (they're really great, you should pick up your and read it!) :wink:
  13. Jun 8, 2003 #12


    User Avatar


    "40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is."
    "50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions. "
    "5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. "
  14. Jun 8, 2003 #13
    I agree with you Shintashi, but I wouldn't go so far as to call modern day physics a sham. I look at it as if it were a game of chess, people like Einstein or Tesla come up with some excellant move on the board and many others begin to see it as an excellant move also and so follow it up(without actually moving the piece), it's experimentation that gives a clue as to the response the opponent might have, maybe 10 moves later it is found that a wrong turn was made somewhere and we are going to lose so some bit of backtracking is required. The object of this game is to forsee from start to finish a win without ever moving a piece, although very often people mistake an excellant move for having physically moved that piece and it can't be taken back. 2 keys here are trying varied approaches and remaining skeptical, although typically in chess there are a set number of "opennings" they are called that yield the highest probability of success, try moving your king out early and even a fair opponent will likely win.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 8, 2003
  15. Jun 8, 2003 #14

    While I was in a Corporate meeting we like to call 'church', today, I was using our "flyer" to jot down notes, and mathematics aside (that's what you people are for), laid down the foundation for 75% of a working model for my Jello Theory of Everything [JTE} (it will be its own thread, and I hope you will come and help me out... oh yeah, and leave relativity at the window, you have to completely invert your way of thinking for the theory to work... but it looks good for a sketchy 1 hour of notes).

    Meanwhile, on this thread

    I have a deep spiritual connection to Eistein, much in the same way a 12 year old with glasses has with Harry Potter Characters. I think if you go through his whole list of stuff (I've actually read a bunch of it, and heard many lectures on it, but most of that was in the 80s and early 90s, so forgive me for decades of partial amnesia)... if you go through his whole list of theories that he has postulated, they dont all agree with each other, and many are downright opposite to his "completed" General Relativity Theory. I think though, he was correct on many things, just not /these/ things. Einstien said Imagination was more important than knowledge.
    Later in his life, Einstien became a very spiritual man, brilliant, and composing theories that were never finished. It is not his fault that his theories were based upon experiments which worked for local physics but failed miserably a few lightyears out, or a few billion years in the past and future.

    Physics is looking at itself, and calling itself the Universe... it is calling itself Science (the study of the universe), but physics is using a mirror for this measurement, and that mirror is sometimes looked at from different angles, sometimes it is warped, sometimes it is dusty, and sometimes its too dark to see. But what scientists forget is two things.

    1: the mirror will always show exactly the same image reflection no matter how many times you look into it. (unless you, the universe, change)
    2: the mirror is not a video camera, it is not a hologram, it is therefore a mirror image, not a perfect image. Try reading an essay reflected in a mirror written in your own handwriting. (this could be especially difficult if you have your DOCTORates degree)

    Does physics always work ? No. Does it work most of the time ? Yes.

    My biggest fear, is that in thinking the world is flat, we are never going to sail in the Seas, for fear of falling off the edge.
  16. Jun 8, 2003 #15
    This is a bit deviating but here's something to think about: for every one Einstein there might be 10 thousand possible Einsteins. What I mean is that if someone makes a grand discovery it's assumed that they must have some grand intelligence that no one else can match, when in fact it's mostly luck and curiosity, that is only one person is going to discover one particular thing, chances are in favor of someone like Einstein with oddball thinking and a fairly sharp mind but there are thousands or millions of people like that and given enough time all of them might have discovered it, but the flip of the wheel of discovery landed on Albert, had he been obsessed with auto mechanics he might have come up with some new gear shifter but hardly anyone would remember that.
  17. Jun 10, 2003 #16
    Thoughts about lightspeed Relativity in Revised Aether theory

    light remains constant
    (true to its medium, velocity based upon its frequency)
    I would call this the "frozen time wave emission effect". Instead of applying the momentum of a moving object to a photon.. think of a photon as a shock wave, that begins at its current emission... Assume that relative to the local space, the point of origin remains fixed. in this case, light would look a lot like a sound pulse with rings of waves expanding out slowly, while the traveling object would infact contniue going at the same velocity, like a line through the circles.

    lightspeed fluctuates with local space
    instead of paying attention to light speed (a form of wave) with the speed of its origin matter (what i consider yet another wave), pay attention to lightspeed vs. its own frequency, Vs. its medium.
    In this respect, a galaxy could be spinning at 3 light years per year away from our galaxy, and thus, relative to us, that light is moving at 3C, but the space around that light may still have a constant of 1 C. Another way of putting it, is a ping pong ball in two cars, to the driver, the ping pong balls, may be moving the same, but from an outside perspective, the two ping pong balls crossing in their cars could be moving at Faster than light.

    I theorize that light can travel at faster speeds.. this requires an increase density of Aether, I also think the wave which once was light could be altered into something lese which travels at FTL speeds, but it ceases to be classified as light, at that time.

    THe biggest leap to getting past the " im in a train at .9999 C and throw a ball, making it going faster" is matter wave mechanics... light isn't a ball, its a pulse. I dont personally believe in photons as packets of anything, i think they are strangely shaped waves, just like sonic beams. A Pulse is always moving from its epicenter, not from its current velocity...

    Only when you start moving spacetime itself, does lightspeed change relative ot other parts of the universe. Change spacetime, change the "gravitational constant of the universe" and you can make light dance the hula...
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Time is a what-what?
  1. What's the time? (Replies: 4)

  2. What is time? (Replies: 84)

  3. What is time? (Replies: 37)

  4. What is time? (Replies: 19)

  5. What is time? (Replies: 20)