@WiseMonkey888 Yes time is linear but we also have Proper Time. The rate that time flows relative to the energy or mass of an object. Time will run slower around an object of great mass forming time dilation and the geometry of Einstein’s curvature of spacetime.
your theory has all kinds of errors. First of all you don't need light to cause an electric field, wow. Matter and antimatter DO constantly grow 180 degrees out of sync in atoms though, but not using photons or any 1 particle. Each atom does form it's own space and time, you got that right. Big problem with your theory, your whole video explains space in atoms, doesn't explain where the power or geometry comes from. Useless without some grit to explain geometries!!!
I believe going the speed of light will not change time, it will simply change the timing that an object arrives to a destination or change the timing of what goes on within the object. But timing of other objects in space won't be affected because of it.. In other words, I don't think it will change the timing of the whole universe and everything within.. That is the only way to go back in time, everything has to go back with you. I don't think it's possible, maybe I am wrong with this.
Another MInd bogling yet great Quantum Pyhsics video...
I just want to know, we always represnt Arrow of time as a liner, but what is a possiblity that it could be curved like every thing else in the Univers? even light curves around stars and in a curved Universe.
There are those who belives in Mulit-Unverse then how Time is passed from one to the other. or even those belive that Universe expand and contract continuously is there any posiblity of negative time (reversed time)?
@KurdstanPlanetarium We have an Arrow of time, but we also have Proper Time. The rate that time flows relative to the energy of mass of an object. Time will run slower around an object of great mass forming time dilation and the geometry of Einstein’s curvature of spacetime. In this theory we cannot go backwards in time because we are always forming our own spacetime relative to our energy of mass.
@nickharvey7 I seem to recall several years back, as one of our deep probes (I don't recall which) approached the edge of our solar system... something about it inexplicably speeding up the further it was from the sun (massive object). Now, it occurs to me that perhaps this could mean that the speed of light, as we know it, and have measured within proximity to our massive sun, might possible be in error? In other words, if in deep space (away from massive objects) it may be faster?
@nickharvey7 ... (continued) I would suggest, if speed of light increases further away from massive objects, that this could mean that interstellar travel might possibly take less time that previously thought. Also, could be reasonable that ET's, theoretically having detected our civilization from our radio broadcasts, may have received them quite quickly and could reasonably have arrived here soon after. Your thoughts on speed of light and time outside or between solar systems?
@luc59457 In this theory because classical mechanics is an approximation of quantum mechanics that the uncertainty of quantum physics forms a base for the uncertainty of our everyday life. Therefore it would be relative to our Universe at large.
@KurdstanPlanetarium It is Curved. Time goes in all directions, whichever way the body is traveling in space has a timing in comparison to another object. If there is another universe, time is not passed to it, neither is time passed to this universe, time is not a thing. Time is simply the motion of objects in space.. Timing is the better word. The universe expanding and contracting, does not cause reverse time. Simply reverse direction. That's what I think.
@luc59457 well we know that time slows down with large masses and with velocities approaching that of light, it stops completely when reaching velocities of light,I know according to relativity theory nothing reaches or surpass velocity of light, but i heard there are such researchs in Russia and if so why it does not reverse...strange but I belive there maybe such possiblity somewhere out there as there are so many singularities exist where science can not explain therm...who knows?
@KurdstanPlanetarium I know according to relativity theory nothing reaches or surpass velocity of light, but i heard there are such researchs in Russia ... So? Research into doesn't mean it has been accomplished.
@luc59457 no it does not mean has been accomplished yet but maybe one day...
to me surpassing velocity of light is like surpassing zero in real No lines...you cant divide any no by zero but just pass zero then you can divide by negaive nos...its obvious zero is a singluarity here, so we cant reach velocity of light but we may surpass it, and thats the basic of the Russian researchs into...well the unkown!!
@KurdstanPlanetarium Anyways, the only point I see in speed is to get to places faster. We don't even need to go close to the speed of light to get to places fast. Forget about going back in time right now, if even possible it is way beyond our time! We can't even get particles to go the speed of light, now imagine a space ship where we could possibly see/feel the effects. Tremendous amount of energy, way beyond our time.
@luc59457 well you are right the time is not right to go backward in time, but now science is so bloody advanced in building machies such as Large Hadron Collider (LHC), trying to make blackholes and who knows what else goes inside such horrible machines, one thing for sure I dont like to mess up with Nature, for sake of Science as it has terrible cosequences for us and our Planet as a whole..
@KurdstanPlanetarium The Hadron Collider hadn't even come close to replicating the big bang (theory) They may never, thus it might just be one big waste of money.
@KurdstanPlanetarium I highly doubt it ever will.. The energy released from the big bang is more than a supernova that turns into a black hole.. We do not have the energy on earth to replicate a star of such size.
@KurdstanPlanetarium We have only been able to create a star on earth for seconds... And one that is not even close to the size of a star that would turn into a supernova
@luc59457 well they said they can create a Black Hole that lasts for fractions of a second...but Black holes by nature devours everything around it and grow fatter even by fractions of seconds so, it may not behave as they predict it, to last for short period of time...to be honest those who talke such non sences dont even know what thet dealing with...I dont trust false judgement that may cost us dear..
@KurdstanPlanetarium It definitely won't behave the same... A Large star will behave differently than a small one like our sun, through time, so it should be said that the same would apply to a black hole or different sizes and magnitudes of energy.
@KurdstanPlanetarium That's incorrect. Black holes do not "Devour everything around it". If the sun collapsed into a black hole tomorrow, the orbits of the planets would be uneffected. Black holes can only interact gravitationally, so if it has the same mass as the sun, it would produce the exact same effect. Objects "fall" into black holes, just like you "fall" to earth from space. The ones created in the LHC evaporate by quickly by Hawking radiation because of their low mass.
@TheResidentSkeptic I wouldnt say that...you see Black holes gravitaonal force so enormous that even light itself with its tremdeous speed does not escape it...a typical diameter of a black hole is about 3 Km, imagine our sun with its diameter nearly 1 million Km contracts to mere 3 Km, thats not normal is it...althought black holes usually made by stars 10 times or more massive than our sun..
to me the Physics inside and around a black hole is different than our phyiscs.
@KurdstanPlanetarium Just because an object is flying in space (if it ever does) at the speed of light, does not change the timing for the rest of the universe. Just for that object and what's within.
If, every volume containing matter has a center of gravity, that is the total of all the mass contained within that volume. Where is the center of the universe, whose volume is unbound? Every point in the universe is the center of gravity of the universe because the universe is the same distance in all direction from it. But, if there is no volume of matter around a point, it is just empty space, and shows no weight, or gravity, and has no inertia. Space is a superfluid gas, that floats matter.
@rongrite Therefore, every atom of volume is a gravitational center through which the superfluid gas (space) of the universe drains. The bigger the "drain" the more space pours into it, as that "space" is pulled through a diameter of volume towards the total mass of the universe, at its center. Matter floats in space, but the bigger it is the more momentum and inertia it has, smaller matter gets pulled along in this current of space, flowing into larger volumes of matter. We see this as gravity.
time is linear, but expanding out in all directions. the word "linear" may be inappropriate. with the analogy to dice, I think we might be the dice, but not the p[layer.
i find this to be true, though i don't think many will be able to understand your way of explaining it.
From a physical perspective, time is a measure of distance the fastest thing can travel through that space. Time as a variable, would mean real distance increases closer towards a center of gravity. But yes it's simple geometry: 1point;2points;3edges;4sides;5volumes?!Fourth/fifth dimension?! How big is a center of gravity? A point?Mass needs volume to detect!
@WiseMonkey888 Yes time is linear but we also have Proper Time. The rate that time flows relative to the energy or mass of an object. Time will run slower around an object of great mass forming time dilation and the geometry of Einstein’s curvature of spacetime.
nickharvey7 1 year ago
@rebokism well I just wonder !!!
KurdstanPlanetarium 1 year ago
your theory has all kinds of errors. First of all you don't need light to cause an electric field, wow. Matter and antimatter DO constantly grow 180 degrees out of sync in atoms though, but not using photons or any 1 particle. Each atom does form it's own space and time, you got that right. Big problem with your theory, your whole video explains space in atoms, doesn't explain where the power or geometry comes from. Useless without some grit to explain geometries!!!
mikefromspace 1 year ago
I believe going the speed of light will not change time, it will simply change the timing that an object arrives to a destination or change the timing of what goes on within the object. But timing of other objects in space won't be affected because of it.. In other words, I don't think it will change the timing of the whole universe and everything within.. That is the only way to go back in time, everything has to go back with you. I don't think it's possible, maybe I am wrong with this.
luc59457 1 year ago
interesante
nathapalacios 1 year ago
@WiseMonkey888 Because?
sleeper1929 1 year ago
Another MInd bogling yet great Quantum Pyhsics video...
I just want to know, we always represnt Arrow of time as a liner, but what is a possiblity that it could be curved like every thing else in the Univers? even light curves around stars and in a curved Universe.
There are those who belives in Mulit-Unverse then how Time is passed from one to the other. or even those belive that Universe expand and contract continuously is there any posiblity of negative time (reversed time)?
KurdstanPlanetarium 1 year ago
@KurdstanPlanetarium We have an Arrow of time, but we also have Proper Time. The rate that time flows relative to the energy of mass of an object. Time will run slower around an object of great mass forming time dilation and the geometry of Einstein’s curvature of spacetime. In this theory we cannot go backwards in time because we are always forming our own spacetime relative to our energy of mass.
nickharvey7 1 year ago 2
@nickharvey7 I seem to recall several years back, as one of our deep probes (I don't recall which) approached the edge of our solar system... something about it inexplicably speeding up the further it was from the sun (massive object). Now, it occurs to me that perhaps this could mean that the speed of light, as we know it, and have measured within proximity to our massive sun, might possible be in error? In other words, if in deep space (away from massive objects) it may be faster?
AlienPet13 1 year ago
@nickharvey7 ... (continued) I would suggest, if speed of light increases further away from massive objects, that this could mean that interstellar travel might possibly take less time that previously thought. Also, could be reasonable that ET's, theoretically having detected our civilization from our radio broadcasts, may have received them quite quickly and could reasonably have arrived here soon after. Your thoughts on speed of light and time outside or between solar systems?
AlienPet13 1 year ago
@nickharvey7 Exactly.. It is not relative to the universe at large.
luc59457 1 year ago
@luc59457 In this theory because classical mechanics is an approximation of quantum mechanics that the uncertainty of quantum physics forms a base for the uncertainty of our everyday life. Therefore it would be relative to our Universe at large.
nickharvey7 1 year ago
@nickharvey7 Indeed we are relative to the universe at large, but we are a part that has become aware, conscious.
luc59457 1 year ago
@KurdstanPlanetarium It is Curved. Time goes in all directions, whichever way the body is traveling in space has a timing in comparison to another object. If there is another universe, time is not passed to it, neither is time passed to this universe, time is not a thing. Time is simply the motion of objects in space.. Timing is the better word. The universe expanding and contracting, does not cause reverse time. Simply reverse direction. That's what I think.
luc59457 1 year ago
@luc59457 well we know that time slows down with large masses and with velocities approaching that of light, it stops completely when reaching velocities of light,I know according to relativity theory nothing reaches or surpass velocity of light, but i heard there are such researchs in Russia and if so why it does not reverse...strange but I belive there maybe such possiblity somewhere out there as there are so many singularities exist where science can not explain therm...who knows?
KurdstanPlanetarium 1 year ago
@KurdstanPlanetarium I know according to relativity theory nothing reaches or surpass velocity of light, but i heard there are such researchs in Russia ... So? Research into doesn't mean it has been accomplished.
luc59457 1 year ago
@luc59457 no it does not mean has been accomplished yet but maybe one day...
to me surpassing velocity of light is like surpassing zero in real No lines...you cant divide any no by zero but just pass zero then you can divide by negaive nos...its obvious zero is a singluarity here, so we cant reach velocity of light but we may surpass it, and thats the basic of the Russian researchs into...well the unkown!!
KurdstanPlanetarium 1 year ago
@KurdstanPlanetarium Anyways, the only point I see in speed is to get to places faster. We don't even need to go close to the speed of light to get to places fast. Forget about going back in time right now, if even possible it is way beyond our time! We can't even get particles to go the speed of light, now imagine a space ship where we could possibly see/feel the effects. Tremendous amount of energy, way beyond our time.
luc59457 1 year ago
@luc59457 well you are right the time is not right to go backward in time, but now science is so bloody advanced in building machies such as Large Hadron Collider (LHC), trying to make blackholes and who knows what else goes inside such horrible machines, one thing for sure I dont like to mess up with Nature, for sake of Science as it has terrible cosequences for us and our Planet as a whole..
KurdstanPlanetarium 1 year ago
@KurdstanPlanetarium The Hadron Collider hadn't even come close to replicating the big bang (theory) They may never, thus it might just be one big waste of money.
luc59457 1 year ago
@luc59457 I agree and hopefully they never reach that stage, as I personally agaist it...
KurdstanPlanetarium 1 year ago
@KurdstanPlanetarium I highly doubt it ever will.. The energy released from the big bang is more than a supernova that turns into a black hole.. We do not have the energy on earth to replicate a star of such size.
luc59457 1 year ago
@KurdstanPlanetarium We have only been able to create a star on earth for seconds... And one that is not even close to the size of a star that would turn into a supernova
luc59457 1 year ago
@luc59457 well they said they can create a Black Hole that lasts for fractions of a second...but Black holes by nature devours everything around it and grow fatter even by fractions of seconds so, it may not behave as they predict it, to last for short period of time...to be honest those who talke such non sences dont even know what thet dealing with...I dont trust false judgement that may cost us dear..
KurdstanPlanetarium 1 year ago
@KurdstanPlanetarium It definitely won't behave the same... A Large star will behave differently than a small one like our sun, through time, so it should be said that the same would apply to a black hole or different sizes and magnitudes of energy.
luc59457 1 year ago
@luc59457 of*
luc59457 1 year ago
@KurdstanPlanetarium That's incorrect. Black holes do not "Devour everything around it". If the sun collapsed into a black hole tomorrow, the orbits of the planets would be uneffected. Black holes can only interact gravitationally, so if it has the same mass as the sun, it would produce the exact same effect. Objects "fall" into black holes, just like you "fall" to earth from space. The ones created in the LHC evaporate by quickly by Hawking radiation because of their low mass.
TheResidentSkeptic 1 year ago
@TheResidentSkeptic I wouldnt say that...you see Black holes gravitaonal force so enormous that even light itself with its tremdeous speed does not escape it...a typical diameter of a black hole is about 3 Km, imagine our sun with its diameter nearly 1 million Km contracts to mere 3 Km, thats not normal is it...althought black holes usually made by stars 10 times or more massive than our sun..
to me the Physics inside and around a black hole is different than our phyiscs.
KurdstanPlanetarium 1 year ago
@KurdstanPlanetarium Black holes can have any mass. Think of a stellar black hole more like a neutron star that you can't see.
TheResidentSkeptic 1 year ago
@KurdstanPlanetarium waste of money out of curiosity..
luc59457 1 year ago
@KurdstanPlanetarium Just because an object is flying in space (if it ever does) at the speed of light, does not change the timing for the rest of the universe. Just for that object and what's within.
luc59457 1 year ago
@KurdstanPlanetarium It does not mean it is possible either.
luc59457 1 year ago
If, every volume containing matter has a center of gravity, that is the total of all the mass contained within that volume. Where is the center of the universe, whose volume is unbound? Every point in the universe is the center of gravity of the universe because the universe is the same distance in all direction from it. But, if there is no volume of matter around a point, it is just empty space, and shows no weight, or gravity, and has no inertia. Space is a superfluid gas, that floats matter.
rongrite 1 year ago
@rongrite Therefore, every atom of volume is a gravitational center through which the superfluid gas (space) of the universe drains. The bigger the "drain" the more space pours into it, as that "space" is pulled through a diameter of volume towards the total mass of the universe, at its center. Matter floats in space, but the bigger it is the more momentum and inertia it has, smaller matter gets pulled along in this current of space, flowing into larger volumes of matter. We see this as gravity.
rongrite 1 year ago
time is linear, but expanding out in all directions. the word "linear" may be inappropriate. with the analogy to dice, I think we might be the dice, but not the p[layer.
busplunger 1 year ago
i find this to be true, though i don't think many will be able to understand your way of explaining it.
From a physical perspective, time is a measure of distance the fastest thing can travel through that space. Time as a variable, would mean real distance increases closer towards a center of gravity. But yes it's simple geometry: 1point;2points;3edges;4sides;5volumes?!Fourth/fifth dimension?! How big is a center of gravity? A point?Mass needs volume to detect!
2 volumes to show weight/gravity
rongrite 1 year ago