Time is it moving slower than it was in the young universe?

[Alan McDougall]

Krumple I think I am question is thinking about the idea where we always exist in a moment and this moment flows down a river we call time

In a way this concept is interesting, do we ever reach a point in time xris often poses this question. When say the clock is supposed to read exactly 1200hrs it is already 1200.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 001 hrs Planks constant

This logic, and I do not say it is correct supposes we are hypothetically sitting on a seat call "moment and the clocks moved passed us

Getting back to the original question of this thread, the immense gravity of the early universe should have stopped time as in the case of a black hole?? But it did not something drove the universe outward and allowed entropy to flow so stars galaxies could form. Again I cant see how entropy could flow in the absence of time, they are so interlinked. As an Engineer in the Power utility field I am well schooled in the vital concept of entropy

[Samm]

All that is is the present. The past is nothing but memory and the future is nothing but the potentials immanent in each present moment. Only the present exists. How can any two times even be conceived as existing together? Of course they cannot exist together, not though they were an age apart nor though they were adjacent instants. Only one moment may ever exist, the moment of the present in which all experience occurs, in which all choices are made and all actions initiated, in which all events bring about all the change that ever occurs.

Do not think that time brings about motion. Inertia and momentum are built into the properties of all objects. Their change in location from one present moment to the next is determined by intrinsic properties of the objects and every particle of their being. Time is only a toy that we play with in our observation of reality. It is not a part of reality. Only change is real. What are our equations except a device for measuring the amount of change in objects relative to the movement of our clocks and the cycles of light and darkness. It was not said that we should set time to zero (t=0); rather it was said that we should remove time from the equations altogether.

Samm

[Alan McDougall]

Originally Posted by Samm

All that is is the present. The past is nothing but memory and the future is nothing but the potentials immanent in each present moment. Only the present exists. How can any two times even be conceived as existing together? Of course they cannot exist together, not though they were an age apart nor though they were adjacent instants. Only one moment may ever exist, the moment of the present in which all experience occurs, in which all choices are made and all actions initiated, in which all events bring about all the change that ever occurs.

Do not think that time brings about motion. Inertia and momentum are built into the properties of all objects. Their change in location from one present moment to the next is determined by intrinsic properties of the objects and every particle of their being. Time is only a toy that we play with in our observation of reality. It is not a part of reality. Only change is real. What are our equations except a device for measuring the amount of change in objects relative to the movement of our clocks and the cycles of light and darkness. It was not said that we should set time to zero (t=0); rather it was said that we should remove time from the equations altogether.

Samm

Nice post Samm, do you think the ever moment idea that I stated in my post, just before this one is correct? Did you read it??

[Krumple]

Originally Posted by Alan McDougall

Getting back to the original question of this thread, the immense gravity of the early universe should have stopped time as in the case of a black hole?? But it did not something drove the universe outward and allowed entropy to flow so stars galaxies could form. Again I cant see how entropy could flow in the absence of time, they are so interlinked. As an Engineer in the Power utility field I am well schooled in the vital concept of entropy

I think people are looking at it backwards. Have you ever seen what happens to a marshmallow inside a vacuum? You can also "inflate" a balloon by lowering the pressure of the outside instead of increasing the pressure of the inside. I am wondering if the universe is doing something similar.

Instead of the universe expanding with a force pushing from inside outward, it is an outside force pulling the "edges" of universe outward. I think the reason we cant find all the dark matter that is suppose to be in our universe is because it is actually the "outside force" I am referring to causing the stretch effect similar to a balloon in a vacuum. This would also account for dark energy as well.

[Samm]

Originally Posted by Alan McDougall

Nice post Samm, do you think the ever moment idea that I stated in my post, just before this one is correct? Did you read it??

I had read about a page of posts following my last post, but I must say upon checking that I do not remember the post to which you refer. But, as my uncle always said of himself, "My memory ain't what it used to be, and it never was!"

When you talk about a moment (the present) flowing down a river we call time, well, you're still talking about time. That river, that temporal continuum or one-way dimension, is an extention that doesn't exist. It's illusion is perpetrated upon us by our own memories, and by a much more primitive form of memory that is intrinsic to the most fundamental particles of nature. But all that exists of time is the moment. The entire universe exists in moments of the present--these moments are not necessarily the same moment perhaps for all things, nor is the rate at which changes occur within that moment the same for all things. But there is no river.

Reality manifests only in the here and now. Before it manifests, a thing that will be real already exists in the present reality, as a potential embedded within the fabric of reality. One form of this potential is the quantum potentials that collapse, not when observed but when observable (e.g., manifest in present reality). But the future is not hidden in some continuum beyond our perception, it is hidden in the very present moment within the properties of the objects and particles that (now) exist. There is no river of time.

Reality manifests only in the here and now. After it manifests, a thing that was real remains real only changed. Its previous condition does not disappear down a river of time (a temporal continuum beyond our perception), but rather ceases to exist except in memory, not only in human memory but in the more primitive memory of matter itself. The present condition of any particle of matter (etc.) is the sum of all its previous conditions, hence its memory as I say. Ask yourself where these words came from that you read on your computer screen, as I suppose. Well they didn't exist until they appeared on the screen just now. But before that, we know that they existed in potentia. They were electronic
information sent to your computer from a server where they were stored as what, magnetic information? laser information? (I don't know that much about server storage systems). Before that, it was electronic information sent to the server from my computer as I now sit and type it, seeing the words on my computer screen. Prior to my typing them, they are ideas and concepts stored within my brain, some created only as I type them out perhaps. And before that they existed only in various things that I have experienced in my life...books I have read, documentaries I have watched, reflections I have had while pondering my existence in this universe--we all have our own unique collection of such experiences in our lives.

But the thing is, the words you read have always existed in the present, in one form or another although they have not existed on your computer screen until virtually this very moment. And where will they go when you leave this post and go to another, or make your own post, or go to another site, or involve yourself in another activity? Your computer will "remember"them for a time. The server will "remember" them for a greater time. You yourself will remember them for some time, albeit less perfectly, than computers do. They will become a part of your experience and maybe play some part in the further development of your own ideas. Others who read them may recall portions of them or achieve some change as an effect of them. (At least that's what we hope when we write our posts. )

But the thing is, the words continue to exist and have consequence even when they fade from the screen, and this is the form of memory (human and primitive) in which all things of the past continue their existence, consequentially. Everything is now. The experiences and activities and changes of the present are now. The potentials that give birth to further changes are now. The consequences and memories of what has been before are now. The moment of time is real. The river of time is not.

Samm

[I am question]

The arrow of time example is quite interesting. But velocity shouldn't interlink time and distance, only distance. I dont know how time would have any effect or cause on the velocity of an arrow when it is shot. Professor Roger Penrose once said that when you pause that arrow in mid air, you will not know where it came from or where it is going only where it is at, you will never know the beginning point and end point at the same time, only one. Time, people is not in our physical reality, im not saying it doesn't exist fully, only on the outside of our minds. Do you understand its linear like our conscience, its created the way we wanted it to be, because we are the creators. Call me crazy but im sticking with this belief, same with a million other physicist out there, I need proof to show me time is a physical entity. At any velocity why would you need time? At zero velocity what is time not effecting?

[validity]

Originally Posted by Alan McDougall

Getting back to the original question of this thread,

The progress we made has been forgotten and it is leading to further confusion.

Originally Posted by Alan McDougall

the immense gravity of the early universe should have stopped time

You have forgotten the important bit i.e.

Originally Posted by Alan McDougall

In the huge gravity of the early universe time must have flowed slower RELATIVE to the almost infinitely less compacted universe of present time

Originally Posted by Alan McDougall

as in the case of a black hole??

It is not the same case as a blackhole has an outside perspective independant of the blackhole itself ie the event horizon is the "line in the sand". Where is the outside perspective of the early universe?

[Samm]

Originally Posted by validity

The progress we made has been forgotten and it is leading to further confusion.

It is not the same case as a blackhole has an outside perspective independant of the blackhole itself ie the event horizon is the "line in the sand". Where is the outside perspective of the early universe?

But the early universe has no outside perspective. The universe is an inside with no outside, is it not? Is it not a space-time bubble bent in upon itself by the gravitational power of its own mass??? I got no earthly idea, I'm just asking. And if it is a space-time bubble, must it not be enclosed within an "ocean" of spaceless timelessness????? And would that not mean, effectively that the far-flung universe is enclosed within a singularity??????? I would ask more, but I'm out of question marks.

Samm

[validity]

Originally Posted by Samm

But the early universe has no outside perspective. The universe is an inside with no outside, is it not? Is it not a space-time bubble bent in upon itself by the gravitational power of its own mass??? I got no earthly idea, I'm just asking. And if it is a space-time bubble, must it not be enclosed within an "ocean" of spaceless timelessness????? And would that not mean, effectively that the far-flung universe is enclosed within a singularity??????? I would ask more, but I'm out of question marks.

Originally Posted by Samm

Samm

I always carry a few spare to share ?????

Yes the question of “Where is the outside perspective of the early universe?” is designed to encourage the listener to reflect on what the implied answer to the question must be.

You are correct in that it is conceivable that the entire universe is a black hole see http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath339.htm

An ocean of spaceless timelessness would be one way of describing the outside of an enclosed universe. Others might say there would be no mental or physical tools to allow the construction of such a concept, so it is best not to think of the universe as being enclosed by something, although it is closed… Hmm… I do not know what the tools would be, but I do think that it is possible to construct a concept. I see hints in such phenomena as entanglement where “things” happen with seemingly no regard for the concepts of space and time i.e. occur simultaneously over unconstrained distances

[prothero]

I thought time was always relative and observer dependent. So time is moving slower where relative to whom?