Origin of the cosmos / time

[SmokeHut]

I'll try to be as clear as possible on my belief based on x and y.

I consider myself an agnostic borderline atheist, so therefore any sort of creative intelligence is ruled out for me personally.

I also consider the big bang theory, though there are a lot of indications that this theory is correct such as background radiation and the movement of galaxies point to the idea that it is moving away from an epicenter to be credible but not what I choose to believe.

Two things humans tend to do in my opinion is base things on other things.
Beginning & End
For example;

We're born, we die;

Therefore we assume these things based on beginning and end. But if you look at we're born and we die on an atomic level, It's quite the contrary of beginning and end.

Time
Then we also base a lot on time, but time is a man made constant based on momentum, speeds are relative to time, where time is based on speed. So for anyone considering time travel a possibility, they're living in a fantasy.

So with these two arguments in hand, I'll try to explain my theory.

I believe there is no beginning, as it is human nature to assert origin with something we cannot prove was an origin. This can be argued for the origin of the earth, based only on radioactive depletion. But not for the origin of the cosmos.

And time, saying that the earth is ~4.5Billion years old is equal to saying the earth has traveled around the sun completely ~4.5Billion times..? I don't really know where I'm going with that but it appears to me to make it far more complex than simply basing it on time.

My penultimate point is it not therefore a possibility, that the universe never began. And has always been?

And finally, time is used to make universal constants such as the ultimate speed limit being the speed of light, using meters per second, is therefore an approximation as seconds it'self is an approximation "Universal Time (UT) is a time scale based on the mean solar day, defined to be as uniform as possible despite variations in Earth's rotation." doesn't this make just about everything to do with momentum inaccurate in actuality as opposed to our understanding of it?

 

[i have a pure]

It's probably just the codeine but I couldn't make sense of what you said, relating to galaxies moving away from a central point.

Did you say this because you believe this or did you say it because it would need to be so to make the big bang theory credible?

Because my understanding is that galaxies do not all move away from any given galactic coordinates, where ever you are in the universe it will appear as though everything else is moving away from you as the space between galaxies is expanding is equal measure and not from a singe point.

I could be wrong, I just remember reading that somewhere. Good thread.

 

[SmokeHut]

It's probably just the codeine but I couldn't make sense of what you said, relating to galaxies moving away from a central point.

Did you say this because you believe this or did you say it because it would need to be so to make the big bang theory credible?

Because my understanding is that galaxies do not all move away from any given galactic coordinates, where ever you are in the universe it will appear as though everything else is moving away from you as the space between galaxies is expanding is equal measure and not from a singe point.

I could be wrong, I just remember reading that somewhere. Good thread.

I think your input is a little more informed than mine, so I'll grant that. But it's more a correction rather than an opposing view. But thank you for the input, I'd like to see other peoples theories on this.

 

Time is relative, yeah. That's Einstein's big ol' theory.

However, you're only considering human measurements for time. We have to label everything and quantify it to our understanding, or else we would not understand it. How would you describe a speed of m/s, without using time as a basis measurement? Better yet, make someone understand that without using metres either since gravity fucks up spacetime and thus 3D measurements are, technically, also relative. Take the event horizon of a black hole, for example. Within a black hole matter gets stretched. Not broken, stretched. You'd be decomposed at an atomic level if you jumped into one of those things. Nobody actually knows if you'd live or die however, which is pretty interesting. You could theoretically retain your physical state once under normal relativistic conditions again.

The thing about time is that it's a dimension, the 4th in fact. It is a real, tangible thing. We only slap measurements on it to understand it. I can even prove to you that it exists, by simply referencing gravity. Gravity affects spacetime, and we know this because of time dilations around huge objects. Even the Earth dilates time slightly. Someone in space will age slower than someone on Earth. That's entirely because of gravity. Extreme amounts of force can also affect time, and in a big way. There was an Earthquake in Peru sometime in the 2000s that actually propelled the entire planet a whole 2(?)ms into the future. Gravity is a force, which explains the phenomenon. Any force large enough can affect spacetime, which is the entire concept behind a spaceship's warp drive.

As for the universe not having a beginning or an end, that's pretty unlikely. What is likely is that both the beginning and the end are one in the same. I've got my own theories around that, and have some math to back it up. PM me about it if you want to hear more, because it's an entirely different discussion altogether.

Anyway I threw around a bunch of ideas just now, I hope that they sort of piece together for you.

 

[SmokeHut]

Time is relative, yeah. That's Einstein's big ol' theory.

However, you're only considering human measurements for time. We have to label everything and quantify it to our understanding, or else we would not understand it. How would you describe a speed of m/s, without using time as a basis measurement? Better yet, make someone understand that without using metres either since gravity fucks up spacetime and thus 3D measurements are, technically, also relative. Take the event horizon of a black hole, for example. Within a black hole matter gets stretched. Not broken, stretched. You'd be decomposed at an atomic level if you jumped into one of those things. Nobody actually knows if you'd live or die however, which is pretty interesting. You could theoretically retain your physical state once under normal relativistic conditions again.

The thing about time is that it's a dimension, the 4th in fact. It is a real, tangible thing. We only slap measurements on it to understand it. I can even prove to you that it exists, by simply referencing gravity. Gravity affects spacetime, and we know this because of time dilations around huge objects. Even the Earth dilates time slightly. Someone in space will age slower than someone on Earth. That's entirely because of gravity. Extreme amounts of force can also affect time, and in a big way. There was an Earthquake in Peru sometime in the 2000s that actually propelled the entire planet a whole 2(?)ms into the future. Gravity is a force, which explains the phenomenon. Any force large enough can affect spacetime, which is the entire concept behind a spaceship's warp drive.

As for the universe not having a beginning or an end, that's pretty unlikely. What is likely is that both the beginning and the end are one in the same. I've got my own theories around that, and have some math to back it up. PM me about it if you want to hear more, because it's an entirely different discussion altogether.

Anyway I threw around a bunch of ideas just now, I hope that they sort of piece together for you.

Excellent post, and an interesting read indeed.

I'm struggling on the second paragraph where you mention being propelled into the future by 2ms.

Where time and perception are different in my point of view, is that once you receive light rays that give you the ability to see and make things relative. You will never see that particular light ray again, unless. However, if you managed to exceed the speed and distance that light ray had traveled to see it again. Hence the traveling faster than the speed of light puts you back in time theory, but only because you're further away from the source of light and it takes ( time ) to get there. So to be propelled 2ms into the future, doesn't surely mean we are literally forward in time and skipped 2ms of emitted electromagnetic rays, we could however just be 2ms further away from our known ( man made ) clock than we previously were. But I could be interpreting it wrong. As for your theory on start/end, I've been doing a hell of a lot of research to educate myself better on the issue, but however, again my brain seems convinced.

 

Excellent post, and an interesting read indeed.

I'm struggling on the second paragraph where you mention being propelled into the future by 2ms.

Where time and perception are different in my point of view, is that once you receive light rays that give you the ability to see and make things relative. You will never see that particular light ray again, unless. However, if you managed to exceed the speed and distance that light ray had traveled to see it again. Hence the traveling faster than the speed of light puts you back in time theory, but only because you're further away from the source of light and it takes ( time ) to get there. So to be propelled 2ms into the future, doesn't surely mean we are literally forward in time and skipped 2ms of emitted electromagnetic rays, we could however just be 2ms further away from our known ( man made ) clock than we previously were. But I could be interpreting it wrong. As for your theory on start/end, I've been doing a hell of a lot of research to educate myself better on the issue, but however, again my brain seems convinced.

It wasn't so much a perfect instantaneous propagation of 2ms into the future, as much as it was that time slowed down on Earth enough that space moved through its portion of spacetime a whole 2ms ahead of Earth than usual. Again events like these require huge amounts of energy, hence why gravity is the prime candidate in causing such phenomena. Earthquakes also radiate huge levels of energy, which is why this event was possible in the first place.

Here's how it likely appeared visually, if you could translate a 4D picture into 3D:

That dip in spacetime that the Earth causes because of its mass/gravity like "bounced" when the Earthquake happened, elongating the spacetime cliffs present around the planet.

 

[SmokeHut]

It wasn't so much a perfect instantaneous propagation of 2ms into the future, as much as it was that time slowed down on Earth enough that space moved through its portion of spacetime a whole 2ms ahead of Earth than usual. Again events like these require huge amounts of energy, hence why gravity is the prime candidate in causing such phenomena. Earthquakes also radiate huge levels of energy, which is why this event was possible in the first place.

Here's how it likely appeared visually, if you could translate a 4D picture into 3D:

That dip in spacetime that the Earth causes because of its mass/gravity like "bounced" when the Earthquake happened, elongating the spacetime cliffs present around the planet.

Wow, that's some complex interesting stuff.. I'm going to take a further read into this.