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

Toroidial Time

  1. Apr 5, 2007 #1
    I was staring at my calculus book when this came to me, so apologies if its a little murky.

    I've been thinking about hubble time and noticing something odd, that my astronomy professor really couldn't (or wouldn't) answer.

    t(u)= 1/H x 10e12 years

    which didn't quite work because if the observations of the expansion of the universe indicated acceleration, then the age of the universe would be going down, not up, and eventually the timeline of humanity would exceed the age of the universe (which among other things would be really wierd). When I thought About it some more, this only seemed to make sense if time were moving backwards. Instead of cause -> effect, it would be effect -> cause, while our perceptions would be mnemonic. As crazy as this sounds, it made sense, at least on paper. Then I thought some more on the subject a year later (the present), and concluded there was a problem. While the universe may be expanding and accelerating so, in reverse it would be contracting and decelerating. This seemed to work, until I thought about the big bang, and then realized that such a "bang" would have enormous rates of acceleration.

    This led me to believe there may be a pattern to the motion of time in relation to space, and the first thing I thought of that resembled it was the motion of galactic material into and out of a blazar or other galactic black hole.

    I was then reminded of Hannes Alfven's Plasma cosmology, and the theories of galactic plasma EM fields paralleling the Earth's magnetosphere. If the lines of electromagnetism are compared with a toroid, with velocities going toward the axis accelerating, and lines exiting the axis decelerating, then it works.

    For a quick reminder, here's a random image.
    or go here:
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 6, 2007 #2
    And you just said that you didn't understand functions very well?!
  4. Apr 6, 2007 #3
    is that a real question or sarcasm? I was never trained formally in mathematics beyond the algebra level, and learned what was necessary for my science classes. My calculus book is called "Calculus". its the 3rd edition of Stewart from 1995 and was a gift from long ago. I just started reading integrals today, while also reading a biographical excerpt on the side of some guy with a photgraphic memory named Gauss. I took physics and chemistry at the highschool level 14-15 years ago, and took physics and astronomy at the college level recently. Engineering physics is different though, much more "rigorous" and requires a heavy amount of calculus - much more than working with a matrix or using the square route of -1.

    mainly I would like to have the math skills to describe theories that come to mind based on observation and analysis. As Eric T Bell says
    "the very essence of analysis is the correct use of infinite processes"
  5. Apr 6, 2007 #4
    I am sorry if my comment offended you, but I'm just amazed. The terms velocity, acceleration, etc. have precise meanings in physics, and more so in cosmology. Someone would need at least a rudimentary understanding of differential geometry, which is quite a way from derivatives and integrals, to properly describe theories on black holes and the universe. So it was just surprising to see this post from you, who, just a few hours ago, was asking what an integral was. :)
  6. Apr 6, 2007 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Shintashi, go and learn derivatives and integrals first, then learn their application in classical Newtonian mechanics, then think about your question again! Do it in that order! Until then, I do not see a point in discussing your question. In fact, I do not see a point in your question at all.
  7. Apr 7, 2007 #6
    the solution to the Olber Paradox was proposed by Edgar Allen Poe, not a mathematician.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook