Why Is Matter/Time Not A Constant?

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by stonerish, Oct 6, 2010.

  1. Again:

    Why Is Matter/Time Not A Constant?

    If matter in its simplest states isn't static, it needs to be represented over something...time...
     
  2. time is a variable. it changes.


    so does matter. it cannot be created or destroyed, but it does change form and arrangement, etc with respect to time.
     
  3. because it doesnt measure the same at different speeds
     
  4. but aren't time and matter both....energy?

    They are dimensions of energy, time is the '4th' dimension of space so to speak...

    I can see a relation, but i cant seem to word it...
     
  5. #5 stonerish, Oct 6, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2010
    All states of matter are in movement. Therefore, they must all be expressed with respect to time. Because matter is not static and still, but rather is in constant 'change'...it must be said to occur 'over time'

    therefore: Matter/Time should be the base expression of matter in general

    (I cant address your argument that time changes...i know too little of quantum mechanical, and relativist, theories of time)
     
  6. time isnt energy....let me say it like this: if "man" did not exist, "time" would not have existed. The idea, concept of "time" is manmade ...

    matter, on the hand, IS energy but it doesnt matter because "time" is considered by some to be the fourth dimension...

    and im just thinking about those theories with mindfucking names like theory of everything, superstring theory, etc. and somewhere i remember reading something about there were 11 dimensions in all but what the fuck all that is about i am yet to understand...like the quantum....:(
     
  7. This is why time is not constant, because it is based on mass and gravity. On earth, the changes between mass and objects in relation to time are too insignificant to detect (without equipment). This is why it is said that time slows down when you approach a black hole, because it's mass is soo large, it distorts time immensely....well actually at the singularity of black holes, time doesnt exist and it essentially rips a hole through the space time web.

    [​IMG]

    Here is a good image of a different stars and a black hole

    [​IMG]
     
  8. a hole thru which, as theorized, "time travel" can be made....the debate continues....:smoke:
     
  9. #9 stonerish, Oct 6, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2010


    Pair of aluminum atomic clocks reveal Einstein's relativity at a personal scale


    also...your black hole pic reminds me of this...

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100406172648.htm
     

  10. I think its possible, maybe not with humans, but possibly with radiation, photons or something. It is starting to be more widely believed that the rip in a black hole is a direct route to our alternate universe which essentially exists right next to us. It cannot simply lead to nothing, or just stop, because the only evidence we have for that is that we dont know what is outside our universe, The mere fact that our universe started is significant because there has to have been something before that, because when nothing exists.....something will.
     
  11. #11 Liqweed, Oct 6, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2010
    thanks for that link, very very interesting.



    as for the wormhole, yes that is a more accurate picture depicting both universes, I just wanted to make sure the op understood that our own universe has its own space time web. Or perhaps they are all intertwined...idk really.
     
  12. it has to be with "matter", whether protons or spaceships thats a matter of efficiency and planning...

    "...It cannot simply lead to nothing, or just stop..." : we will never know physically until that trip is made with veritable data.

    "...The mere fact that our universe started is significant because there has to have been something before that, because when nothing exists.....something will." : i disagree because you seem to totally discount vacuums. "Nothing" CAN exist, and it is called a vacuum-a space fully void of matter.
     

  13. thought you'd like that...I have no clue how the proper name appeared for the second article in your quote but not on my screen right now...i cant get it titled other than the link :confused:
     

  14. time still exists in a vacuum. Laws still exist in a vacuum.
     


  15. No one does...

    No one can...

    Thats the point of discussions like this...
     



  16. "a vacuum-a space"

    How is that nothing?
     
  17. i. time is not matter, hence unapplicable to the vacuum argument.

    ii. "laws", as in the "lwas of physics" pertain to "physical matter", stuff that DOES NOT exist in a vacuum. Therefore, in the absence of "matter", debating over whether the laws governing that matter exist is equivalent to the lockean debate of whether "sound" is produced in a forest when a tree is felled if there are no humans to hear it....
     

  18. we are theorizing..
     
  19. thats a hyphen man....jesus christ
     

  20. when I said nothing....I meant absolutely nothing....like not in our universe, no time, no space, no gravity, laws, ect. before the big bang, before everything......there was a time when NOTHING existed. And then right after that....something existed.
     

Share This Page