The Relative Mass of Time.

Post Reply New Topic

It has been proven that time is affected by mass or that of things that have mass, Gravity.

Question,
With this in mind, what do you think time would be like in the depths of the void compared to the heart of the sun?
To each, time I assume would seem normal speed to live in, but comparably it would be a different story.

Lets define the dimensions of this.

Sound good?

Well isnt time suposed to stop or something in a black hole, I am not sure about that though. the interesting factor might be the reactions that happen within a sun and the light, radiation etc that the flows through space, would that not mean that the energy moveing from sun to space would then build up. Isnt the main picture for looking at this is usualy a huge dimensio which is flat, but when an item is put on the dimension sinks a bit, and if I remember properly black holes make a big sink hole.

I think your concept of relativity is a bit skewed.

As you approach the speed of light, your "time" would remain normal, to you. You would blink your eyes, swallow, breath, all these things in your own "time". However, you would become "out of synch" with those not travelling near the speed of light. They would age and die as you lift your hand to your head.

Go read Hawking's "A Brief History of Time", he explains it in a way many people can understand.

More mass means more gravitational distortion. On the graphs where they represent the distortion by a depression on a plane, the bottom of the gravity well is flat (which represents the fact that at the center of mass the net acceleration is zero.) However, I think the depth of the gravity well would correspond to the amount that the passage through time is slower at the center of mass compared to the edge of the gravity well.

There's both Special Relativity (which involves velocity) and General Relativity.

Last edited by iamnotaparakeet on 18 Sep 2008, 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I am aware of Hawking's I got his books,
What I am interested in is the dimensions it self pertaining too placing one dimension in time next too the other,
what kind of world and notable affects would we find in between.

Like sending an object through the event horizon of a black hole? Tidal forces would come first.

And this is why a Black Hole is so destructive they have near infinite mass...

So Grav is uber destructive and rips apart atoms and light...

But a white hole expels matter so wouldnt that mean it has negitive gravity????

Infinite mass? Via E = m*c^2, or just say E = mk, if you make
m infinite, then the energy to make the mass is infinite as well.

Possibly, I don't know though.

I never said Infinite I said NEAR Infinite!! !

Well, as I've pointed out, to bring this back to our everyday existence, GPS satellites do actually need to keep track of the difference in time speed between themselves and the surface of the earth in order to maintain their high precision.

I wrote this a long time ago and thought I would post it. I really don't remember why I wrote it. Enjoy!

Debunking Scientist Statements About Time Travel And Dissecting Time Travel Into Problematic Astrometry Values
A short essay by Ryan Allen
June 19, 2003, 2:08 AM
©2003 Ryan Allen
kxmode1@yahoo.com


Figuratively, time is a wheel.

We know time is visible through the method of past, present and future. Rather than one rigid, unchangeable shape, this time wheel itself has the ability to change and form a complete system where varied speeds of light could be achieved.

Normal time is represented as a wheel with three rings and an inner core. Each successive ring rotates by a small amount compared to the preceded ring (illustrative examples: the ring animation from the movie Contact, or watch runners during a Track and Field event). While the inside ring rotates slowly the outermost ring moves at a high rate of speed. As the wheel rotates, the coordinates (x, y) of a point on the wheel to its center are dynamic, but the distance (r) between the point and the center are static. The following formula is supposed:

The coordinates (x, y, and z) of the interval between two points in three-dimensional space (a vector) change when the coordinate system is rotated in three dimensions. However the separation (r) of the two points remains constant. Thus we arrive at the formula:



This again is what could be classified as normal time.

Here's where things get interesting…

Let's go into different warped times otherwise known as a space-time wheel. A space-time wheel is shaped like the letter "X". A vectored shape becomes horizontal where time (t) is vertical and space (x) is horizontal.

Like the normal three-ringed circular shape, a small velocity compared to the preceded ring, or branch there boosts each successive ring. As the space-time wheel boosts the space-time coordinates (t, x) of a point on the wheel to its center change. Yet the space-time separation(s) among the point and the center remains constant. This formula could best represent this:



Moreover, the coordinates (t, x, y, z) of the interval between two events in four-dimensional space-time (a 4-vector) change whenever the coordinate system is boosted or rotated, but the space-time separations of the two events remain constant. This would result in formulating:



The invariant space-time separation(s) between two events is a rock in the sea of relativity (a quantity that remains the same for all observers). Though time and space they change for different observers. The space-time separation(s) is of basic importance in relativity.

Let's suppose you took a trip across the Universe in a spaceship, constantly accelerating at one-Earth gravity (g). How far would you travel in how much time? The space-time wheel offers a unique way to solve this problem. Because the rotating space-time wheel might be regarded as representing space-time frames, that undergoing constant acceleration, points on the right quadrant of the rotating space-time wheel would represent world lines of persons whom accelerated with constant acceleration in their own frame.

If the units of space and time are chosen so that the speed of light and the gravitational acceleration are one, (c = g = 1), then the proper time experienced by the accelerating person is the boost angle, and the time and space coordinates of the accelerating person (to a person whom remains idle), are those of a point on the space-time wheel:



In the case where the acceleration is one-Earth gravity (g = 9.80665 m/s2), the unit of time is [c / g = (299,792,458 m/s) / (9.80665 m/s2) = 0.97 years], just short of one year.

After a slow start, you cover ground at an ever-increasing rate, crossing 50 billion light-years, the distance to the edge of the observable Universe, in just over 25 years of your own time.

Does this mean you go faster than the speed of light? No. From a person’s view on Earth, you never go faster than the speed of light. From your own view, distances along your direction of motion are Lorentz-contracted. So distances that are vast from Earth's view appear much shorter to you.

As the Universe rushes by it never goes faster than the speed of light. This is why stars that we see as being vibrant burned out millions of years ago. Simply stated it took the light that long to reach us.

This rosy picture of being able to flint around the Universe has drawbacks. First, it would take too much energy to keep you accelerating at Earth's Gravity. Second, you would use too much Earth-time traveling around at relativistic speeds. If you took a trip to the edge of the Universe by the time you got back not only would all your friends and relatives be dead, but the Earth would probably be gone, swallowed by the Sun in its red giant phase. The Sun would have exhausted its fuel and shriveled into a cold white dwarf star. The Solar System, having orbited the Galaxy thousand times, would be lost somewhere in the Milky Way.

Also worth noting the Universe is expanding. The distance to the edge of the observable Universe is increasing. So it would actually take longer than expected to reach the edge of the observable Universe. Moreover if the Universe is accelerating, as recent evidence from the Hubble diagram of Type Ia Supernovae suggests (Supernova Cosmology Project and High-Z Supernova Search), then you will never be able to reach the edge of the observable Universe regardless of speed.

/\
Way To much Time on his hands...

I have AP. Of course.