# Is time literally Acceleration? Hear me out.

Discussion in 'Science, Tech, & Space Exploration' started by Shadowprophet, Jun 17, 2019.

Messages:
3,769
I may be as crazy as a stoned pack of looney toons but the constant to that is Science is my Rock. Science is a Logical and Empirical foundation I base my sanity upon, It keeps me grounded.

So we are going with Relativity here and even so, Some people could disapprove, the fact remains, Relativity at its current iteration seems to be the way the universe functions, Now people can disagree with that and bring some Quantum physics to the table, However, For peer review, no one can beat relativity for round table support of a theoretical model. So, Spacetime for the sake of this example is a literal empirical fact. we could argue that Said tablecloth is Red and Not burgundy or we could both just accept it's a table cloth and move on with the discussion. I've spent the last Twenty years of my life trying to intimately understand time, I haven't sat on my ass either. Okay okay okay, Enough of that introduction shit, I've got a point to get too.

Spacetime, We know that Space and time are their own Dimension. I've been running this same model of universal expansion in my mind for years, As the universe expands we are hurtling through the cosmos 74.3 kilometers per second, Now this is debatable, But the metric I'm using is called the Hubble constant. "Which is also debatable--- but hey, to finish a thought one has to make choices and progress the narrative.

Anyway, Most people would agree, No matter what metric you use to measure the expansion rate, That's pretty damned fast.

Let's talk about some Laws of motion real quick, As Mass accelerates that acceleration is cumulative energy which does make an object denser. Denser objects have greater gravity, As mass approaches the speed of light, It hits a threshold in which its energy becomes so great it hits a critical mass and thus, All physical matter is consumed by the overwhelming energy.

But, What if the universe was Static, What if the universe wasn't expanding. For that matter what if the universe wasn't in motion at all, What if galaxies didn't rotate what if solar systems stood still, What if the universe was a completely stationary thing, There would be no acceleration, So surely energy and mass itself would at the very least be affected on some incalculable level through the entire cosmos. If an object's mass is affected, we know then that its gravity, and thereby it affects on spacetime would be radically changed.

This brings me to two thoughts. Either The acceleration of the universe is directly affecting gravity, And Thus time itself. Or, Without the acceleration of the Cosmos Time would simply cease to exist. I don't know, Nobody wants to get caught talking to the crazy Guy, but, that's okay. sometimes I don't want to talk to myself either :/

Last edited: Jun 17, 2019
2. ### spacecase0earth human

Messages:
1,021
I am sure I have made my opinion on this topic known already,
but I think the idea of "spacetime" is just nuts.
we know what space is and we know what time is,
bonding them in some inseparable way just makes the math and ideas harder to deal with.

if we look at time as a changeable thing, and leave space (distance) alone,
let us call it a time field just to be easy
we know that clocks tick off the flow at various speeds depending on where they are (doubt anyone will argue this point as the GPS system needs to take this in to account or it would not work)
so, gravity is then easily figured out.
we have an unequal time field, one running faster in space, and the other side is running slower near earth.
so any particular bit of matter is spending more time on one side than the other, so it moves to the slower time field.
sort of like how diffraction bends light...
it is all simple that way.

• Awesome x 2

Messages:
3,769
As theories evolve, the understanding improves, I can see your arguments, But to really dive deep in this, We would need to enter dimensional theory, And Ultimately, that's just theory. To boot this, I wouldn't want to be pedantic and explain what the first three dimensions are, as I'm more than certain you know. So what I'm getting at is, because of the way the second dimension works, the second dimensions only experience the 3rd dimension in a very limited way, See this leads back to your first sentence brother, And Don't get me wrong, I've seen you around I've seen you post, I know you are well studied in science so, I'm not being backlash or smarmy about this. I just needed to explain that, Well, We don't fully understand, Space, Or time, If I were to empirically speak about it. it can be said we are lacking understanding in both space and time, So if, in your theory, That space and time are different dimensions, And don't get me wrong. I'm open to the idea. But if they are different dimensions, Wouldn't that mean, That space and time, Could only experience one another in very limited ways? Just as the second dimension experienced very limited third dimension in this same way?

I don't want any misunderstandings, I very well respect your mind, I just needed to explain all of this to make that point.

Last edited: Jun 18, 2019
• Like x 1
4. ### spacecase0earth human

Messages:
1,021
I tend to think that it is all dimensional theory, but it can be verified with hardware tests.
if I am correct about it,
then each dimension also contains the attributes of the previous dimensions, just like area in an attribute of volume.
so the quick list of dimensions in order. length, area, volume, time field, electric field, magnetic field, etc... (each at another right angle to the previous one)

there are hardware tests out there that verify most of this already,
but there are a few more to do, and I plan on doing them.
I expect no one will pay much attention till they are done, and even then, I expect it to be hard to get any competing idea to relativity out there.

• Like x 2
• Awesome x 1

Messages:
4,327
• Thanks x 1
6. ### spacecase0earth human

Messages:
1,021
so, anytime someone brings up an alternate idea, they are kicked out of the category of "real scientist" ?
so I guess my status has been revoked despite all the years of college learning physics...

the official answer to the original question is that all the kinetic energy in the spin of everything does make more gravity
I was just trying to make it easier for shadowprophet to figure this all out

if you look at it the standard way,
E=MC2 is just an equation that appears to assume that the energy matter is made of is tied up in angular momentum
and if following the logic, if mass bends space time, then so does energy.

• Awesome x 2
• Like x 1
• Thanks x 1

Messages:
3,769
@Human Anoidlord.

I love Thomas, I'm always seeking his input.

But, I'll put money on the table right now, that Thomas would agree there are about seven people at these forums that could easily be "real scientists" if they had the money to finish college. My thing is, No, I never finished college, But, My love for study and the sciences have taken me pretty far.

I think Thomas would also agree, "Wall Candy" Or a diploma doesn't make the man, all that really proves is said diploma person had the money to finish the financial obstacle course challenge that is college. I also feel that Thomas would agree that If people saw a college diploma as a cut off for relevant conversation about a subject, One would be preventing a lot of gifted people from speaking.

Don't get me wrong, I value Education, I value The input of educated peers. But a piece of paper alone, Doesn't make the man

• Thanks x 2
• Agree x 1
8. ### Thomas R. MorrisonMeh

Messages:
1,197
That's a central feature of relativity: mass-energy. Einstein figured out that all forms of energy contribute to the curvature of spacetime (this is formally codified in explicit detail in the stress-energy-momentum tensor). So, for example, if you heat up a ball of steel, it becomes gravitationally more powerful as the kinetic energy of its molecules increases.

One of my favorite heroes is Oliver Heaviside - he was an autodidact with an uncanny facility for mathematics and physics, and he discovered the principles of gravitoelectromagnetism (GEM) in the 19th century, nearly 20 years before Einstein published his general theory of relativity.

Regarding your opening point, I can offer three concepts to consider:

1.) The entropic theory of gravity asserts that spacetime are emergent phenomena produced by entropy distributions and gradients. In this theory, space and time are not fundamental, but rather epiphenomena produced by entropy.

2.) In my work related to the special theory of relativity (SR) I've shown very clearly how velocity and time are equivalent units. Acceleration does have an intriguing relationship to time in Einstein's general theory or relativity, namely, gravitational time dilation - so yes in GR time and acceleration are inextricably related, just as in SR time and velocity are inextricably related.

3.) There's a fascinating paper called "A Gravitational Arrow of Time" that models the rate of time on the cosmological structure. It may be that he direction of time will reverse when specific conditions are met in the future on a cosmological scale. Worth looking at if you'd like to pursue this line of reasoning further. We provided an overview of this idea in this episode of our Physics Frontiers podcast.

• Like x 1
• Thanks x 1
• Awesome x 1
9. ### Dejan CorovicCelestial

Messages:
1,207
Oliver Heaviside is my favorite scientist as well, particularly because he's self-thought. All the relativistic fuss was started when he discovered relativistic length contraction and than Lorentz killed himself trying to explain it away. Accolades went to Einstein, but really should had gone to the eccentric Heaviside. It's just a blatant case of scientific miss-attribution.

Last edited: Jun 19, 2019
• Like x 1
• Thanks x 1
• Awesome x 1