Early Morning Physics ( WTF )

[mamberg]

I wish I could have a cat, but my apartment doesn't allow it.

 

 

Maybe you could get a Schr

[Sixtonoize]

LULZ

[corporealJigsor]

I was sitting at the kitchen table this morning, just thinking about things. I remarked to myself how the coffee was going to give me the energy to drive home. The coffee, paid for with money. And we all know time is money. And it suddenly struck me that money is energy -- after all, we trade our energy for money, that is what all forms of wealth fundamentally are. Using the transitive property, time is energy. I've been considering the nature of space-time and how we really don't fully understand it, when a new interpretation of current data came to me. Please bear in mind that my knowledge on this is fairly limited and I certainly don't possess any kind of formal education on the matter, so everything I say is little more than speculation. Anyway, red shifting that we observe indicates that the universe is expanding. More specifically, it indicates that everything is expanding away from everything else. That is one way to interpret the data. However, consider this: What if everything is "stationary", and instead of everything moving farther and farther apart, it was simply shrinking on? That explains why everything appears to becoming farther and farther apart over time. I've had this idea in my head for a while now, but I hadn't really had a good explanation for the shrinking. Why is it shrinking, and where is the mass going? When I realized this morning that time was energy, I also realized that mass, being equivalent to energy, was also equivalent to time. The mass could be being converted into time. Or, more specifically, energy that is used to travel forward in time. Imagine for a moment that you're driving your car. You burn fuel to move in the 3rd dimension, from point A to point B. The energy gained from shedding mass is the fuel burned to move forward in the 4th dimension. What implication does this understanding ( or lack thereof! ) of matter/time/energy have for gravity, a currently unexplained phenomenon? My best idea is comparable to a 2 dimensional magnet. Take a piece of paper ( this is our 2D plane ), and draw North on one side and South on the other. The 2D plane now moves through 3D space with the North pole attracted to other South poles. Now, extend this to the third dimension, where the 3D object moves through 4D space ( time ) with the "forward" ends attracted to other "backward" ends. Mass, moving forward through time, is attracted to the "backward" pole of the other mass, and the "chrono-magnetic" force causes an attractive force. With general relativity, we know that increased gravity gives the impression of relatively slower time. Example being that someone on Mars ( less gravity than earth ) would perceive time normally, but in communication with someone on Earth, they'd be perceived as being slower to the Martian, and the Martian would perceive the Earthlings as being slightly faster. If we understand moving through time as the mass/energy shed by the shrinking components of the universe, what does it mean when a more dense mass appears to move slower than a less dense mass? Traditionally, we can see that a less massive object takes less energy to overcome inertia than a more massive object ( Pushing a Civic is easier than pushing a Hummer ). However, if we see gravity as the "chrono-magnetic" force, moving slower through time with more chronomagnetism would imply that the backward force is stronger than the forward force, with higher densities. Understanding again that energy being shed by the mass to move forward through time will result in less massive and less chronomagnetically charged bodies, this makes sense. If we think of it as a surface-area-vs-volume relationship, we can see how increased "volume" leads to decreased relative surface area, and thus less effective movement through 4D, through "chronodynamic resistance", similar to aerodynamic resistance. What is a singularity? A point in space with infinite density. In other words, any amount of mass in infinitely small space. Light can't escape from a singularity. If my theory is true, then the singularity is effectively not moving through time at all, or even moving backwards through time. The big bang, with my idea, is not the explosion of everything from a singularity into the nothingness of a vast 3D space, but rather the explosion of mass burning itself out, like an array of rockets launched into the atmosphere against the gravity of the earth, burning their own fuel out, and, for some, eventually falling back through time. It is now 8AM and I haven't slept for about 24 hours. I'm sure this hasn't made any sense, but it was fun speculating! Feel free to post any comments or ideas.

Your idea of the universe "shrinking" is exactly the same as it expanding, you've just redefined your variables

(physics student)

[eudaimonia02912]

Next time a car passes by you while you stand stationary on the sidewalk, think of this: There are some events that are in the driver's past that are in your future.

[Matt Gnarly]

I would like to further the argument that women are inherently evil.
Women cost time & money, therefore W = t+m wherein W = women, t = time, m=money and e=evil
Time is money, t=m therefore W = m

[Sex Panther]

 

I would like to further the argument that women are inherently evil. Women cost time & money, therefore W = t+m wherein W = women, t = time, m=money and e=evil Time is money, t=m therefore W = m

[9ball]

our closes galaxial neighbor- the andromeda galaxy- is 2 million light years away, and is pretty much on a collision course with the milky way galaxy.

it's also the furthest object visible to the naked eye in the night sky.

but when people look at it- with or without telescopes- what they're actually seeing is light that left that galaxy 2 million years ago, so they're actually seeing it as it appeared 2 million years ago, not right now. so in effect- they're looking into the past.

[Matt Gnarly]

So close, but I just beat you...by....what's today, Tuesday? 8 months.

 

 

Well played good sir