1. We are always moving... we move with earth, which moves around the sun, which moves around the center of our galaxy, our galaxy is moving to... What if thats the only reason we experience a change in time... What if we could go out in the middle of space, out of our galaxy into a place not moving... would time stop? But everything in the universe is moving because of expansion... so what if we go somewhere where we move with just expansion, without the earth, sun, and galaxy... would time slow down?

2.

3. Originally Posted by shawngoldw
We are always moving... we move with earth, which moves around the sun, which moves around the center of our galaxy, our galaxy is moving to... What if thats the only reason we experience a change in time... What if we could go out in the middle of space, out of our galaxy into a place not moving... would time stop? But everything in the universe is moving because of expansion... so what if we go somewhere where we move with just expansion, without the earth, sun, and galaxy... would time slow down?
No, time never slows down for you no matter what frame of reference you are in. Your time only slows down from the point of view of someone observing you.

4. sorry i wasnt clear, I didn't mean from your own point of view.

5. Originally Posted by shawngoldw
We are always moving... we move with earth, which moves around the sun, which moves around the center of our galaxy, our galaxy is moving to... What if thats the only reason we experience a change in time... What if we could go out in the middle of space, out of our galaxy into a place not moving... would time stop?
Yes. If we could go to a place that is not moving, then time would stop. However, as your own first sentence states, this is not possible.

But everything in the universe is moving because of expansion...
This is not correct.

6. so if it's not moving from expansion why is it moving?

7. Originally Posted by shawngoldw
so if it's not moving from expansion why is it moving?
I do not understand your question. Are you suggesting that everything in the universe is in a constant state of expansion away from everything else in the universe? Why do you consider expansion to be the driving force? If so, what is the source of the expansion, and why is that not the driving force?

8. Originally Posted by Hermes
But everything in the universe is moving because of expansion...
This is not correct.
I thought that expansion from the big bang was driving the universe to move. Then within each galaxy there was also movement from gravity and the other fundemantal forces. But Hermes said that expansion isn't causing everything to move, so im asking what is causing the movement

9. Originally Posted by shawngoldw
Originally Posted by Hermes
But everything in the universe is moving because of expansion...
This is not correct.
I thought that expansion from the big bang was driving the universe to move. Then within each galaxy there was also movement from gravity and the other fundemantal forces. But Hermes said that expansion isn't causing everything to move, so im asking what is causing the movement
force is required to move a body and keep it in motion when opposing friction right.

expension is applying a force to spacetime which is causing it to stretch equally in all directions, or inequally either way. i fail to see however how this would cause a rotation of the earth or move the sun through the galaxy as this only applies force to spacetime.

it is however creating more of a gap between each galaxy which gives the impression that it is moving away, when really the galaxy could be remaining in the same position, so its moving away reletive to us the observer.

10. im not saying taht its causing the inner galaxy to move... i thought that it was causing the galaxys as A WHOLE to move as the universe stretches but back to my quote... he sais it isnt so im asking what is doing it

11. in answer to the quote...

any number of things, i've heard of:
a rippling shockwave from the big bang,
dark matter wells,
and many other insane ones i won't mention as possible solutions.

i myself prefer it in terms of the shockwave, the universe was infinitely hot in the first few moments of existance right and at that point only basic elements, gas, existed. noticing that hot gas has the tendancy to expand i could see a shockwave, or wave at least, being produced by such a phenomenon.

but thats my imagination talking.

12. Einstein proved that we live in a 4-dimensional universe and that the 4th dimension is time.
Time is motion, and conversely.
Until if and when Einstein's observation is surpassed, there is no allotment for the absence motion (=time).
Corroborately, there is no allotment for the absence of space (=space-time).
Re: TOTAL UNIFIED FIELD THEORY http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

13. suppose you are in space with no planet size objects around,
everything appears distant and you cannot detect any movement of anything 'out there', has time stopped?
If it has, how can you know?

14. Originally Posted by phyti
suppose you are in space with no planet size objects around,
everything appears distant and you cannot detect any movement of anything 'out there', has time stopped?
If it has, how can you know?
Would "you" be aware of yourself or of anything at all? If so, then time has not stopped.

15. Time is not dependent on normal motion, like classical (orbital) mechanics for example. Hmmmmm' perhaps if all (subatomic) motion could be eliminated you would have a very cold and very long lived universe..... [/color]

; } >[/b]

16. The cessation of all motion eventuates to the stoppage of all molecular, atomic and subatomic motion. Such a condition would be Absolute Zero. Equivalent to the amount of energy in the universe, used to stop itself. Sort of a reversal of the status quo of quite everything, large and small, in motion - no condition of non-motion is known to occur in any known space-time. Such a condition, though hypothetical, directly connotes
no motion, no heat (temperature); the non existence of anything. Not to be contentious, but 'cold' is an anthropomorphic evaluation. There wouldn't be any of that either. Also sounds like a perfect vacuum is required; another condition for which there is no known real counterpart.

Although conditions 'approaching' Absolute Zero are being created and/or observed, how 'close' is 'close'? Re: Xeno's Paradox - minus the factor of time (X's P -T), squared to microcosmic infinity. Re: an inch is as distant as a mile; that sort of standard...
No. It doesn't seem likely that any human thought could occur in such conditions. We wouldn't know anything. Synapsis would be untenable. Yes. Apparently: We would be very cold, for a long time, as long as we were 'that cold'. If we were alternating from 'that cold' to normal conditions, we would apparently have no way of knowing of the alternating condition.
______________________

All that exists, does so, whether you're around to be aware of it or not. (Life - and existential reality - goes on, within, and without you. It was all here before you arrived, and it'll all be here, long, long after you're sojourn as a flash in the pan. I think. Therefore I think I think I am. <Ho hum> Cogito ergo: so what?)

17. Yes. Apparently: We would be very cold, for a long time, as long as we were 'that cold'. If we were alternating from 'that cold' to normal conditions, we would apparently have no way of knowing of the alternating condition.
Yes, true, TRP!

I would suspect that ALL motion could not be stopped, but thought experiments (as Albert Einstein called them) are fun.

In addition to not being able to (currently) create a perfect vacuum, or to eliminate ALL subatomic motion, we cannot make measurements or take ourselves out of the experiment, because we as observers are part of the universe, and therefore part the system that we are testing!

I have a strong suspicion that this is a safeguard to keep us from tampering with the "hidden files" of the universes op system ...so to speak. Another way of phrasing this thought is that because we are part of the system that we are observing, we can never be sure if our very presence effects (for good or bad) the outcome of the observation/experiment!

So, in summery I would say that we always play a part in any experiment involving mass, matter, time and or space. At least we will as long as the interpretation of QFT exists in its current form.

I am a religious/spiritual person, and think that supernatural events are indeed weird, but no more weirder than some aspects of science...
[/color] [/quote][/b]

; { >

18. Originally Posted by shawngoldw
We are always moving... we move with earth, which moves around the sun, which moves around the center of our galaxy, our galaxy is moving to... What if thats the only reason we experience a change in time... What if we could go out in the middle of space, out of our galaxy into a place not moving... would time stop? But everything in the universe is moving because of expansion... so what if we go somewhere where we move with just expansion, without the earth, sun, and galaxy... would time slow down?
Well, about what you said on relativity. The faster one travels the slower lime goes. so if you made it to the center of the universe where there is no motion, then time would actually move faster for you.

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
No, time never slows down for you no matter what frame of reference you are in. Your time only slows down from the point of view of someone observing you.
Actually, if you know that the moving observer was at rest with respect to you at one point, then time will in fact move slower for them. This has been proven by the fact that atoms traveling at near C speeds have substatialy greater half-lives.

19. What correspondents I'm blessed with continue to be unexpectedly thought provoking. Thanks. Stay in touch. I'm at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie
Enter as a guest and you'll see that it 'starts' at Part VII. Click on 'Messages' near the top bar and you get the entire menu.

20. Originally Posted by Vroomfondel
Actually, if you know that the moving observer was at rest with respect to you at one point, then time will in fact move slower for them. This has been proven by the fact that atoms traveling at near C speeds have substatialy greater half-lives.
NO! I think maybe you are thinking of experiment with nutrinos, atleast not whole atoms for one thing. Anyway time doesn't slow down for the particle itself, the ageing of the particle only slows down in the frame of reference of someone observing it.
In summary: for us watching a particle moving at 0.9c through a particle accelerator in a lab it's half life will to us increase by a factor of 7.1, but to the particle looking at itself as it were - it will still have the same original halflife(it will not age by a factor of a 7.1 gamma).

No, time never slows down for you no matter what frame of reference you are in. Your time only slows down from the point of view of someone observing you.
...Is indeed correct! I recommend one understands what is said and think/understand SR properly before correcting.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement