Thoughts on Time and Space.

[ovdtogt]

I would like to share my laymans view of the Universe. Perhaps someone can give it a lookover and give me some helpful criticism.

Everything traveling at or under the speed of light experiences I.e. witnesses the passage of time (TimeSpeed). Everything that exist beyond the speed of light does not experience time, TimeSpeed is zero. Travelling faster than the speed of light, TimeSpeed not exist. Time itself ceases to exist and mass ceases to exist.
This is the realm of Eternity. (No time, no TimeSpeed). A photon is almost timeless with almost the fastest SpaceSpeed and the slowest TimeSpeed and is therefor almost Eternal. If not killed a photon has an almost Eternal life. It will not die and will live almost forever. Photons were created at the birth of the Universe and will be all that is left at the end. Photons will be the last remnants of the Universe. Everything in between has been the life of the Universe (the place where Time has existed). From timelessness to timelessness. Eternity to Eternity.

The creation of mass ( of the Photon) speeds up TimeSpeed. The 'here and now' is where TimeSpeed is the fastest. At a certain point as mass increases TimeSpeed reaches it maximum to then slow down as it approaches a black hole). Over the event horizon TimeSpeed has returned to zero.

The speeding up of TimeSpeed and slowing down of SpaceSpeed coincides with the buildup of mass. TimeSpeed/SpaceSpeed and mass are partners in crime: The Yin/Yang of the Universe.
The 'here and now' is where TimeSpeed is the fastest (the highest concentration of Mass before it collapse into a black hole).
We are travelling on the edge of Time speeding away from where Time stands still. We are indeed Time travellers almost standing still in Space.
Photons are Spacetravellers almost standing still in Time.
The creation of the Universe is the creation of Time. The first things to be created were the slowest things to move in Time (photons).
Because TimeSpeed was almost zero and SpaceSpeed almost 100%, space was created in almost no Time at all.
Photons are at the edge of space and we are at the edge of Time. The edge of Time and the edge of Space meet in SpaceTime.
Photons are the messengers from the beginning of Time at the edge of Time. We are at the edge of Time where Time is being created. And photons are at the edge of space where space is being created. We inhabit SpaceTime. Mass creates Time and Speed creates Space.
Photons are in TimeSpace and we are in SpaceTime which is the same.

Eternity is the absence of TimeSpeed and the absence of Space. Photons are almost eternal. Their TimeSpeed is (almost) zero. Their clocks move very slowly (TimeSpeed close to 0)
Mass has the fastest TimeSpeed. Their clocks move the fastest. The creation of the Universe was the creation of TimeSpeed (Time itself). Everything comes from timelessness and pure Energy which is Eternal because it travels faster than the speed of light and ceases to exist ( TimeSpeed does not exist so Time does not exist). Pure Energy is Timelessness is Eternal. Everything is created from a timeless, spaceless pure Energy.

TimeSpeed zero is eternity. Time starts with non-zero TimeSpeed and 100% SpaceSpeed.
This 'substance' (whatever it is) can be considered pure energy. Timeless and Spaceless. A perturbation?? starts the clock ticking (TimeSpeed commences) and a less pure form of energy is created (non-zero mass). This non-zero mass travels faster than the speed of light to create the Universe (Inflation). During this inflation period, energy is occupying a larger and larger space causing the dilution of energy thereby increasing the mass of the non-zero mass until the first photons are formed.

The 'here and now' is where TimeSpeed is relative to the effects mass. As mass increases to a certain maximum until it collapses on itself into infinite mass. TimeSpeed increases to a certain maximum and then as it approaches and goes over the event horizon collapses into zero. Infinite mass meets zero TimeSpeed (time stops). This singularity is timeless/eternal until ripped apart by the expansion of the Universe.

Gravity is the effects of TimeSpeed on Mass. What mass is experiencing is the slowing down of TimeSpeed. As a photon approaches mass it is effected by the Timespeed curvature created by mass. Mass has a much faster TimeSpeed, but a much slower SpaceSpeed than a Photon. As the photon approaches the mass the side closest to the mass slows down more that the opposing side, making the photon bend it's path towards the mass. We see this as the bending of the light. And we experience this as the pull of gravity. It is in fact the differential TimeSpeeds we are experiencing. There is no pull of Gravity. Just a slowing down of TimeSpeed and an acceleration of SpaceSpeed towards the the center of the mass. As SpaceSpeed increases TimeSpeed slows down.
What caused the creation mass that created Time and Space? What was the perturbation?

[h_k_s]

Those are some nice paraphrases of Einstein and Hawking of yours.

Space however is the absence of anything tangible, as far as we can tell from Earth.

Earth is a tangible object comprised of a multitude of solids, liquids, gasses, and plasma's (fire, lightning) bound together by its own force of gravity. Around the earth is an atmosphere of gasses and water vapor.

Beyond the Earth is the Moon and space.

So far as we can tell, other than trace elements, molecules, and dust, space is empty.

Light is some kind of particulate energy that behaves like a wave. It always emanates from an energized tangible source of some kind, like a star or nebula.

Time however does not exist. Like mathematics, time is simply the product of the human mind.

[PAntoneO]

I would like to share my laymans view of the Universe. Perhaps someone can give it a lookover and give me some helpful criticism.

Everything traveling at or under the speed of light experiences I.e. witnesses the passage of time (TimeSpeed). Everything that exist beyond the speed of light does not experience time, TimeSpeed is zero. Travelling faster than the speed of light, TimeSpeed not exist. Time itself ceases to exist and mass ceases to exist.

I think you have some misconceptions about Einstein's Relativity, assuming this is what you're trying to describe.

One of the experiments that supposedly supports the Relativity Theory, was to send out a very fast plane with a clock on board, when it returned, the control clock that had been synchronized when the plane left was running ahead of the clock on the plane. Even if this was just one of Einstein's famous thought experiments, it still shows that the speed of light (SoL) was not intended to be a hard line like you envision.

The faster you travel, the slower time progresses. But at the same time, mass expands. That's why in all the SF movies when the spaceship jumps into hyper-drive you see the lone lines moving off into the distances. That's the mas elongating, as time slows down for the ship.

I didn't really read past your first few paragraphs, so that's all I have.

[Steve3007]

Everything traveling at or under the speed of light experiences I.e. witnesses the passage of time (TimeSpeed). Everything that exist beyond the speed of light does not experience time,

Can you point to any observational/empirical evidence of something travelling faster than the speed of light?

TimeSpeed is zero.

Speed is defined as change in spatial position divided by change in time. Your use of the term "TimeSpeed" implies that you would like to change that definition. Could you state your definition of the term "speed" in terms of something that can be measured or observed so that I can try to work out what you mean by the term "TimeSpeed"?

This is the realm of Eternity. (No time, no TimeSpeed). A photon is almost timeless with almost the fastest SpaceSpeed and the slowest TimeSpeed and is therefor almost Eternal. If not killed a photon has an almost Eternal life. It will not die and will live almost forever. Photons were created at the birth of the Universe and will be all that is left at the end. Photons will be the last remnants of the Universe. Everything in between has been the life of the Universe (the place where Time has existed). From timelessness to timelessness. Eternity to Eternity.

You appear to me to be anthropomorphizing the concept of a photon a little bit.

Photons were not all created at the birth of the Universe. They are created all the time in various reactions between particles.

[h_k_s]

I would like to share my laymans view of the Universe. Perhaps someone can give it a lookover and give me some helpful criticism.

Everything traveling at or under the speed of light experiences I.e. witnesses the passage of time (TimeSpeed). Everything that exist beyond the speed of light does not experience time, TimeSpeed is zero. Travelling faster than the speed of light, TimeSpeed not exist. Time itself ceases to exist and mass ceases to exist.

I think you have some misconceptions about Einstein's Relativity, assuming this is what you're trying to describe.

One of the experiments that supposedly supports the Relativity Theory, was to send out a very fast plane with a clock on board, when it returned, the control clock that had been synchronized when the plane left was running ahead of the clock on the plane. Even if this was just one of Einstein's famous thought experiments, it still shows that the speed of light (SoL) was not intended to be a hard line like you envision.

The faster you travel, the slower time progresses. But at the same time, mass expands. That's why in all the SF movies when the spaceship jumps into hyper-drive you see the lone lines moving off into the distances. That's the mas elongating, as time slows down for the ship.

I didn't really read past your first few paragraphs, so that's all I have.

Einstein's fundamental fallacy however is that "time exists."

It does not. It only exists/existed in Einstein's head.

[Thomyum2]

I would like to share my laymans view of the Universe. Perhaps someone can give it a lookover and give me some helpful criticism.

Everything traveling at or under the speed of light experiences I.e. witnesses the passage of time (TimeSpeed). Everything that exist beyond the speed of light does not experience time, TimeSpeed is zero. Travelling faster than the speed of light, TimeSpeed not exist. Time itself ceases to exist and mass ceases to exist.

The creation of mass ( of the Photon) speeds up TimeSpeed. The 'here and now' is where TimeSpeed is the fastest. At a certain point as mass increases TimeSpeed reaches it maximum to then slow down as it approaches a black hole). Over the event horizon TimeSpeed has returned to zero.

The speeding up of TimeSpeed and slowing down of SpaceSpeed coincides with the buildup of mass.

The 'here and now' is where TimeSpeed is the fastest (the highest concentration of Mass before it collapse into a black hole).
We are travelling on the edge of Time speeding away from where Time stands still. We are indeed Time travellers almost standing still in Space.
Photons are Spacetravellers almost standing still in Time.
...
Photons are almost eternal. Their TimeSpeed is (almost) zero. Their clocks move very slowly (TimeSpeed close to 0)
...
Mass has the fastest TimeSpeed. Their clocks move the fastest.

Everything comes from timelessness and pure Energy which is Eternal because it travels faster than the speed of light and ceases to exist (TimeSpeed does not exist so Time does not exist).

Hello and welcome to the forum. You've put a lot of different ideas here - too many, too cover thoroughly in a single thread, I think. It seems, like me and many other people these days, you are trying to make sense out of the perplexing and paradoxical ideas that have come out of theoretical physics in the last hundred years or so. I'm no physicist or expert on this, and I won't try to tackle all of this, but I can share some thoughts from the understanding that I have about a couple of these which I've pulled out above.

I agree with the previous comment in that think that says some of these statements you've made reflect a common misunderstanding of the theories of relativity, as least as I understand them - or if not a misunderstanding, then perhaps it just seems that way because of the unusual language you've used. First, we have to keep in mind that movement in space is always relative to a frame of reference. So nothing, whether it's mass or photons or us, 'has' a speed in any absolute sense - we only move in space in relationship to other objects and only as fast or as slow as we are moving relative to the particular frame of reference or point where the measurement is being made. This was true even under classical physics - the relativity of motion in space still applied to a specific frame, but time was considered an absolute measure across all frames. But when relativity was introduced, it was shown that time was relative as well. This has sometimes been misunderstood the way that you describe it above, that the 'speed' of time, or the rate at which time passes or clocks run, speeds up or slows down as one's speed in space approaches the speed of light. This is incorrect, as I understand it, at least according to relativity. Time does not pass any faster or slower, it only appears to pass slower when observed from a frame of reference which is moving at a high speed relative to the object being observed. So if, from the point where I am standing, I observe a traveler moving at a high speed, that traveler's 'clock' will appear to me to be moving more slowly than mine. But the paradox is that this traveler will also observe my own clock to be moving more slowly than theirs.

This ties into a second another point, and I think a second paradox, which is that in relativity, the speed of light is a constant - it is always observed to be the same from all points of reference, if those observers are moving relative to each other. So if we thought of light as a speeding car, for example, it would be pass me at the same speed whether I was parked at the side of the road as it went by, or if I was driving as fast as I could and it passed me going the same direction. So in this sense, the speed light also become the 'speed limit' of all movement and it makes no sense to be talking about anything moving faster than it.

But I get the sense that you understand this because of the last sentence - that what 'travels faster than the speed of light ceases to exist': isn't that just saying, in a roundabout way, the same thing as 'nothing travels faster than the speed of light'?

[Thomyum2]

Einstein's fundamental fallacy however is that "time exists."

It does not. It only exists/existed in Einstein's head.

For something that doesn't exist, it sure has a lot of practical applications. Can you explain to us how a traveler could know when to be at the airport to catch a flight, or even how the farmer who grows the food we eat would know when to plant the seeds, without having some sense of this 'non-existent' notion of time in Einstein's head?

[h_k_s]

Einstein's fundamental fallacy however is that "time exists."

It does not. It only exists/existed in Einstein's head.

For something that doesn't exist, it sure has a lot of practical applications. Can you explain to us how a traveler could know when to be at the airport to catch a flight, or even how the farmer who grows the food we eat would know when to plant the seeds, without having some sense of this 'non-existent' notion of time in Einstein's head?

Those are all a function of CHANGE, not of TIME.

The situation in the present is constantly changing.

We live in the present. There is no past nor future. The present is simply changing constantly.

Time does not exist.

Explaining to all of you all that time does not exist is like explaining to the peoples of the dark ages that the Earth is a sphere not a flat pancake.

[PAntoneO]

I think you have some misconceptions about Einstein's Relativity, assuming this is what you're trying to describe.

One of the experiments that supposedly supports the Relativity Theory, was to send out a very fast plane with a clock on board, when it returned, the control clock that had been synchronized when the plane left was running ahead of the clock on the plane. Even if this was just one of Einstein's famous thought experiments, it still shows that the speed of light (SoL) was not intended to be a hard line like you envision.

The faster you travel, the slower time progresses. But at the same time, mass expands. That's why in all the SF movies when the spaceship jumps into hyper-drive you see the lone lines moving off into the distances. That's the mas elongating, as time slows down for the ship.

I didn't really read past your first few paragraphs, so that's all I have.

Einstein's fundamental fallacy however is that "time exists."

It does not. It only exists/existed in Einstein's head.

Ah! So this is your own theory, not a rewording of Einstein. Good to know.

[PAntoneO]

Einstein's fundamental fallacy however is that "time exists."
It does not. It only exists/existed in Einstein's head.

Ah! So this is your own theory, not a rewording of Einstein. Good to know.

[PAntoneO]

Those are all a function of CHANGE, not of TIME.

The situation in the present is constantly changing.

We live in the present. There is no past nor future. The present is simply changing constantly.

Time does not exist.

Of course the past and the future do not exist in actual time (i.e. the present). But it seems to me that the change you speak of is the meaning of time. The process of changing from one present moment to the next, is the definition of time.

Now, you might argue that time is more like a blood slide that is being dragged across the perch of a microscope--existing all at once. And time is the part you see in the eye piece. Thus, using this analogy or some other, you might say that time is an illusion. But whether it's an illusion or not, that's what time is. So I fail to see how it makes sense to say that time doesn't exist.

Seems to me a bit like the nonsensical Skeptic's Argument:

• I know that I have hands.
  I know that it is possible that I could be a BIV (Body in a Vat)… and, if so, I do not have hands.
  Since this leads to reduction absurdum, I cannot KNOW that I have hands.

BIV of course stands for a Brain in a Vat. But the problem with this argument is that a BIV most definitely does have hands. Just as an actor on a screen does. I think it would be absurd to look at an actor (using his hands to play the piano on a movie screen) and assert that this actor didn’t have hands. What the actor doesn’t have are the [same kind of physical hands that I have]. Similarly, a statue of a man probably has hands, but again, these hands are different from what I have because they are made of metal or clay (ect.) instead of flesh and blood.

The BIV clearly has hands. We can’t even say with absolute accuracy (or certainty) that the BIV doesn’t have [physical hands], for within the vat, the BIV is capable of creating things like movies and fictional characters, and (from the BIV’s perspective) the BIV’s hands are physical with respect to those kinds of hands. Moreover, as the argument itself asserts, we could be BIV ourselves, so how are we to say that as possible BIV we necessarily have physical hands but another BIV doesn't. The most we can say is that the BIV does not have [hands that are physical in the same way that our hands are physical].

Using a similar type of logic, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to say that time doesn't exist. The type of time you're referring to might not exist, but some sort of time necessarily does. And I would argue that it is the "change" you speak of, even if that change/time doesn't occur exactly as we perceive it to exist or for the reasons we believe. In fact, I can almost guarantee you that time isn't what someone thinks it is--no matter what they think it is.

[Steve3007]

Explaining to all of you all that time does not exist is like explaining to the peoples of the dark ages that the Earth is a sphere not a flat pancake.

I suspect that this is because you haven't explained it, so much as simply asserted it several times. Some time ago RJG pointed out to you the inherent self-contradiction in spending your time telling people that time does not exist. If they're not going to simply take you at your word, then maybe it's best spending your time saying something else?

[h_k_s]

Explaining to all of you all that time does not exist is like explaining to the peoples of the dark ages that the Earth is a sphere not a flat pancake.

I suspect that this is because you haven't explained it, so much as simply asserted it several times. Some time ago RJG pointed out to you the inherent self-contradiction in spending your time telling people that time does not exist. If they're not going to simply take you at your word, then maybe it's best spending your time saying something else?

Why do you keep shifting the burden of proof?

[h_k_s]

Einstein's fundamental fallacy however is that "time exists."

It does not. It only exists/existed in Einstein's head.

Ah! So this is your own theory, not a rewording of Einstein. Good to know.

I so not speak for the late Dr. Einstein.

I simply point out his fallacies.

Nice try at an ad hom by the way.

[h_k_s]

Those are all a function of CHANGE, not of TIME.

The situation in the present is constantly changing.

We live in the present. There is no past nor future. The present is simply changing constantly.

Time does not exist.

Of course the past and the future do not exist in actual time (i.e. the present). But it seems to me that the change you speak of is the meaning of time. The process of changing from one present moment to the next, is the definition of time.

Now, you might argue that time is more like a blood slide that is being dragged across the perch of a microscope--existing all at once. And time is the part you see in the eye piece. Thus, using this analogy or some other, you might say that time is an illusion. But whether it's an illusion or not, that's what time is. So I fail to see how it makes sense to say that time doesn't exist.

Seems to me a bit like the nonsensical Skeptic's Argument:

• I know that I have hands.
  I know that it is possible that I could be a BIV (Body in a Vat)… and, if so, I do not have hands.
  Since this leads to reduction absurdum, I cannot KNOW that I have hands.

BIV of course stands for a Brain in a Vat. But the problem with this argument is that a BIV most definitely does have hands. Just as an actor on a screen does. I think it would be absurd to look at an actor (using his hands to play the piano on a movie screen) and assert that this actor didn’t have hands. What the actor doesn’t have are the [same kind of physical hands that I have]. Similarly, a statue of a man probably has hands, but again, these hands are different from what I have because they are made of metal or clay (ect.) instead of flesh and blood.

The BIV clearly has hands. We can’t even say with absolute accuracy (or certainty) that the BIV doesn’t have [physical hands], for within the vat, the BIV is capable of creating things like movies and fictional characters, and (from the BIV’s perspective) the BIV’s hands are physical with respect to those kinds of hands. Moreover, as the argument itself asserts, we could be BIV ourselves, so how are we to say that as possible BIV we necessarily have physical hands but another BIV doesn't. The most we can say is that the BIV does not have [hands that are physical in the same way that our hands are physical].

Using a similar type of logic, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to say that time doesn't exist. The type of time you're referring to might not exist, but some sort of time necessarily does. And I would argue that it is the "change" you speak of, even if that change/time doesn't occur exactly as we perceive it to exist or for the reasons we believe. In fact, I can almost guarantee you that time isn't what someone thinks it is--no matter what they think it is.

Nice try at logic.

But your response is actually merely sophistry, not logic.

Sophistry (and old wives tales) is what your mom taught you when she tried to get you to clean up your room.