Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum The true understanding of "absolute time"

Hey everybody! I don't want to hit you with the whole understanding all at once so I will go to the point and then fill in the voids if necessary, and it will be. I understand exactly what time is in all respects. I know why time can slow down relative to speed from an object. I understand why space changes, contracts. I see what we all missed. I understand how the Universe works both big and small. I understand why the mass in the Universe is increasingly accelerating and I understand the overall mechanism of how gravity works. First of all let me say this; Mass does not warp time and space in the traditional way of thinking. We have all been bait and switched on a slight of hand way of thinking. Now here is the biggie--- are you listening and using the KISS rule. Keep it simple stupid! Mass does not warp time and space, it creates time and space. Time is a measure of change. Our universe is run by all matter naturally decaying creating space via the gravitational wave. It is a matter to energy transfer in resulting wave form. TIme is the change of this process. Matter decreases, space increases. unbound matter ( Space) = bound matter (mass) time the radius ( distance from the center ) squared. Time is a function of the transference process, space is the resulting volume. But the key to understanding is a new concept I have coined, wave synchronization, specifically gravitational wave synchronization. Gravitational wave synchronization explains many things such as, on a small scale, "When I drop stuff, why does it fall?" and on large scale why the Universe's mass is speeding up away from the big bang. Here is exactly what everyone missed. The phrase "What goes up must come down!" apply's to dimensions. The Universe exploded into three dimensions and it is accelerating and flattening into one. As a beach ball that has it's two ends pulled the Universe looks the same except the force comes from within all matter. Why do you think the elements vibrate, because matter escaping into the gravitational wave (space) is the reason. Relative time, E [/LIST] instein's time, is a from of the dopler effect, except with time, and the gravity wave, not sound and sound waves.

Gravity Doc wrote:
"I understand exactly what time is in all respects."
..
"I understand how the Universe works both big and small."

Then perhaps you can help us with something. How can it be that:

e^(i*pi)= -1

Given that you can not write down the values of e, i, or pi?

Thanks.

PS: Even first year physics students can answer this question. With your seemingly boundless knowledge this should be easy for you.

What do they have in common? Not really much, but when we put them together, they make -1, as in the following equation:

e^(i pi) = -1

It is a surprising result, because the left-hand side is a complex number involving the imaginary component, and the right-hand side is a pure real number.

How is this possible that so many favorite numbers are linked together by this single simple equation? The answer is really quite simple if you read on.

If you have learned about Taylor?s expansions, you will know that the three following mathematical functions can be represented by an infinite series, meaning that if you take enough terms to the point that the remaining terms are small enough, you get the answer to the function.

e^x = 1 + x + x^2/2! + x^3/3! + x^4/4! + ...
Sin x = x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - x^7/7! + ....
Cos x = 1 - x^2/2! + x^4/4! - x^5/5! + ...

example:
sin(45 degrees)=sin(pi/4 radians)
=pi/4 - (pi/4)^3/3! + (pi/4)^5/5! - (pi/4)^7/7! + (pi/4)^9/9! - ...
=0.78540 - 0.08075 + 0.00249 - 0.00004 + 0.00000 -....
=0.70710
The accurate answer is 0.7071067812..

In the exponential equation, put x=i pi, then it reduces to:

e^(i pi) = 1 + i pi + (i pi)^2/2! + (i pi)^3/3! + (i pi)^4/4! + (i pi)^5/5! + ...

By regrouping terms, substituting i^2=-1, i^4=1, and factoring out i, we obtain:
e^(i pi)= 1 - (pi)^2/2! + (pi)^4/4! -... _+i ( pi - (pi)^3/3! + (pi)^5/5! - ...)
= cos (pi) + i sin(pi)
= -1 + i . 0
=-1
Now truthfully, this is b.s. because it doesn't tell me squat about creatively solving a problem.
You see, the problem wasn't with math or physics, the problem was with our ability to look, listen, and learn. Your question and your tone is a microcosm of why everyone missed the answer. It is also the reason I chose to withdraw. Someday you, the rest of you, may be ready for the answers. My first post in a couple of years and you are what I get. Do me a favor and figure it out yourself and when you do keep this in mind, I copyrighted it. Goodbye for a while. One thought to put you in the right direction. "What goes up must come down" applies to dimensions!

Time iis relative. I thought everyone knew that. It is not absolute. It can't be. Because it is relatively different for different things.

The faster you travel through space: the less you age.

The slower you go through space the less you age.

Both phenomenon have been scientifically tested and proved.

Turak, your comment is intriguing.

I know that E's theories are interpreted along the lines you offer but I am not up to the business of grasping them.

"Travel fast and age less."
"Travel slowly and age slower."

How do people here fit into that picture?
We are not standing still. On a speed scale of 1 to 10 suppose we are at 3. This suggests we have a great opportunity to alter our aging by changeing our speed, faster or slower we age less, and I am confronted with what is happening to us here that we seem to age so quickly. Who has ever "proved" this concept with real people?
jjw

It's so cool to have God posting on Scienceagogo.

Blacknad.

Hi Gravity doc:

Your number crunch looks impressive- to me.
Your opening lines are somewhat mysterious:

" I see what we all missed. I understand how the Universe works both big and small. I understand why the mass in the Universe is increasingly accelerating and I understand the overall mechanism of how gravity works."

You must be aware of the magnitude of those claims. You missed it with "all" of us but some how overcame the obscuring cloud and we have not. I for one can agree that I have barely a clue about your main premise. If you have a serious proposal why not slow down a little on the important details so less endowed folks like me can play too?
jjw

jjw wrote:
"Your number crunch looks impressive- to me."

It shouldn't. It was copied from another website.

http://www.curiousmath.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=50

copied word for word.

I wrote this before and the moderators removed me pointing out that it was plagiarized but didn't remove the plagiarism. Sort of like arresting the bank teller for identifying the bank robber.

Perhaps they will do so yet again. We shall see.

Gravity Doc
"The Universe exploded into three dimensions and it is accelerating and flattening into one. As a beach ball that has it's two ends pulled the Universe looks the same except the force comes from within all matter."

If we subscribe to the Inflationary Big Bang Theory - the Universe erupted, or inflated (much like a balloon) into a previously empty void or infinite region of nothingness.

A smidgeon of infinite nothingness is now occupied by a finite Universe. The possibility of an "infinite expansion" of the Universe is however constrained or bound by internal forces. Thus, if the Universe is expanding and the process is accelerating - much like a rubber band at full stretch - expansion will eventually give way to de-acceleration and contraction. While this scenario differs from yours the conclusion is similar - though I disagree that the Universe is flattening from three dimensions into one. The three dimensions are simply contracting - decreasing in breadth,depth and height. The logical implication under either scenario however is that the Universe will ultimately implode into a very very big black hole. The singularity returns.

Te Urukehu wrote:
"If we subscribe to the Inflationary Big Bang Theory - the Universe erupted, or inflated (much like a balloon) into a previously empty void or infinite region of nothingness."

Nothing I just quoted from you in any manner resembles the Big Bang theory with or without Inflation. Where did you get this idea?

Nothing erupted.
There was not previously empty anything

Your idea is wrong because you do not understand the fundamental concepts of the theory on which you are commenting.

DA Morgan

If you wish to dispute this assertion please do so with theory. Your comments I note are bereft of substance.

And you think this forum an appropriate place to teach middle-school physics?

Your statement "erupted, or inflated (much like a balloon) into" posits that there was some space separate and apart from the universe.

This is not a consideration, in any regard, in the theory. I can't say it in any other way. This idea has nothing to do with serious science. Nothing erupted, nothing expanded into anything.

The theory very clearly states that the metric of space, itself, changed. This could be a reflection of a change in a fundamental constant without any need for anything to go anywhere or do anything.

Your concept is fundamentally incorrect. And that is the substance of the issue. I'd suggest you pick up a copy of a decent physics book targeted toward the laypublic and read it.

DA Morgan

Firstly, your rudeness is not appreciated. This is a public forum and small children are probably taking notes on how to behave.

Secondly, please explain to me in the most simplest of terms what existed before the physical laws that describe this Universe came into existence? The Big Bang Model only relates to this Universe so beyond its 13.7 billion year boundary is something undescribable by science bound in universal constants or laws.

The analogy of the balloon describes the nature of the Big Bang Model. From a small volume - and after an initial expansion (eruption) the Universe came into being - as the Universe. By drawing dots uniformly on an uninflated balloon - and then rapidly inflating to a sub maximum size - we gain a sense of how space is expanding. The skin of the balloon represents the Universe - the dots are metaphors for matter (galaxies etc). Under Big Bang, the balloon interior is not part of the analogy. Science cannot postulate beyond the bounds of universal laws (contained within the Universe)- therefore I am completely able to say that beyond the physical laws is a nothing, a nothingness - something completely unknowable by reason.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html

TU wrote:
"Firstly, your rudeness is not appreciated. This is a public forum and small children are probably taking notes on how to behave."

If it is rude to point out that you are incorrect so be it. But if you are truly concerned about the affect of this on children I would think you would put a premium and correcting your misunderstanding.

Everything you just wrote is correct. Everything you just wrote doesn't make invalid analogies to erupting or expanding into.