Imaginary universe - to help develope theories about the nature of time

Quantum Quack

Quantum Quack

Life's a tease...
Valued Senior Member
I would like to propose an imaginary universe as a way of devloping and explaining ideas and notions about the nature of time.

Using ths model might help in the understanding of time dimensions and time flow.
OK....best of luck folks...

Imaginary universe.

Single Inertial Frame Universe~SIFU

This universe is essentially the same as the one we observe except for one major distinction.
In this universe nothing is orbiting and nothing is actually non-inertial in that everything is moving at the same velocity relative to each other. So in this universe every major body is in the same inertial reference frame.

So in this universe for example planets do not orbit stars they just maintain their distances from stars [ by some unknown means ] There are no commets and no other objects that are at relative velocity to the stars. All stars are moving at the same velocity as each other so in fact the universe is effectively non moving when witnessed from within this universe.

Moving being defined in the usual casual way in that objects appear to be externally non-moving relative to each other

Strange universe yes?

However strangeness aside the universe [SIFU] seems to function and even though things are not in relative motion time still flows at the same rate, and energy equations such as E=mc^2 still hold true. That is energy still flows at the same rate and light is thought to travel at the usual rate of c. Atomically if one subscribes to atomic theory, systems are a mix of non-inertial and inertial.

So according to Special Relativity Theory everything is in a simultaneous time relationship as there is no relative velocities to offer time dilations and length contractions.

Casually we see a universe that appears to be static yet still moving through time.

The thinking:
By simplifying our universe to being inertial we can concentrate on matters innate ability to move IN or through time [change] with out issues of simultaneity and relative rates of time confusing the issue.

The first series of questions I wanted to ask are:
How is the universe still able to age or progress IN time, not through time if there is no relative movement?

Is the notion of distance still relevant except with regards to intensity?

Is a space time co-ordinate system relevant any more?

Is time only relevant because the objects of this universe are changing only within them selves?

And later
If we agree that the physics are the same as in a non-inertial universe what would happen if only one star was made non inertial in our SIFU and how would that effect the flow of time and why?


any thoughts?
 
Last edited:
So in this universe for example planets do not orbit stars they just rotate on their axis maintaining their distances from stars
Click to expand...

Rotation is non-inertial.
 
JameR if you still see a problem with the model in structure please let me know. Maybe there is a better way to decribe a single inertial frame universe?
 
So basically, we're postulating a world that essentially follows a Newtonian conception of time, yes Quantum Quack? So basically disregarding Relativity issues for the mean time, yes?
 
Prince_James said:
So basically, we're postulating a world that essentially follows a Newtonian conception of time, yes Quantum Quack? So basically disregarding Relativity issues for the mean time, yes?
Click to expand...
In the main I guess yes. The thing is in defining movement from typical movement as seen externally as relative to defining movement that is within the confines of a given object even though that object is not moving relatively externally.

I asked the question a while ago:

If I have a light source and a wall 2 meters apart and the light shines on the wall for 10 seconds how far have the wall and the light source travelled with out apparently moving during those ten seconds ?

The only answer that seems to fit with Alberto´s work is that the light source [ not the light ray but the source] and the wall have travelled approximately c*10seconds or approximately 3,000,000 kilometres.

Which I thought at the time was a pretty amazing concept to think about considering as far as I could tell they hadn´t moved any where.

However if one thinks of a sound speaker and ask the same question about the membrane driver, how far does it travel at a certain frequency and amplitude given a certain amount of time? One can see the guist of what I am about.
 
Which is sor t of funny in a way, say I come over there to the USA and shake your hand for about 2 seconds, after which I say "I hope you enjoyed the journey?" Afterall we had both travelled approx 600,000 kms during the hand shake...ha maybe there aint much to see when going no where fast....ha
 
So basically, a universe where everything is moving at C, but which seems to be static as everything is uniformly moving? Somewhat like two trains going preceisely at 80 mph next to one another? How without any reference one cannot discern that either are moving, despite the fact they are?

Question: How would we know that we're moving at all if we can't tell?
 
Prince_James said:
So basically, a universe where everything is moving at C, but which seems to be static as everything is uniformly moving? Somewhat like two trains going preceisely at 80 mph next to one another? How without any reference one cannot discern that either are moving, despite the fact they are?

Question: How would we know that we're moving at all if we can't tell?
Click to expand...

Good question and this leads on to Alberto´s genius and spectacular inspiration. He decided that light travells at a uniform speed of ´c´ in a vacuum and that light was invariant, and indoing so found the E must equal mc^2 so that matter is actually energy that is traveling at enourmous speeds within the confines of that matter.

So Albert Einstien states indirectly that the universes has an innate change rate of ´c´ And this is evidenced by the speed of light. As the universe is moving together at this fundamental rate it can not be seen as the observer is also changing at the same rate, it can only be held as a mathematical and theoretical speculation based on the apparent speed of light. And time therfore can only be considered in hindsight and foresight [temporally] but never witnessed to pass NOW.
 
So in our SIFU time still marches on even though there appears to be no movement. Eventually this leads to the notion that: The change is happening within matter regardless of relative velocity at a minimum rate or at least at the rate of ´c´
 
Last edited:
This is why inertial frames are simultaneous in time, as they share the exact same change rate of ´c´even though they appear to be static regarding each other.
So for this reason an inertial frame changes uniformally at the same rate. If this was not so inertial frames would be non-simultaneous, which is not what is observed within inertial frames.
 
Question: How would we know that we're moving at all if we can't tell?
Click to expand...

You may recall our discussion about circular and self referencing systems and how one can only see outside of this Samsara only in abstraction or imagination.......

Well Albert Einstein provided with his inspiration our first scientific and relatively successful POV outside the circular system [ Matrix ]. And with spectacular results too I might add.
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack:

Good question and this leads on to Alberto´s genius and spectacular inspiration. He decided that light travells at a uniform speed of ´c´ in a vacuum and that light was invariant, and indoing so found the E must equal mc^2 so that matter is actually energy that is traveling at enourmous speeds within the confines of that matter.
Click to expand...

Would not matter be energy going at increasibly -slow- speeds in this case?

So Albert Einstien states indirectly that the universes has an innate change rate of ´c´ And this is evidenced by the speed of light. As the universe is moving together at this fundamental rate it can not be seen as the observer is also changing at the same rate, it can only be held as a mathematical and theoretical speculation based on the apparent speed of light. And time therfore can only be considered in hindsight and foresight [temporally] but never witnessed to pass NOW.
Click to expand...

A question: How is everything moving at C in this system? E=MC2 depends on matter -not- moving at C.

Moreover, certainly we can see time right before our eyes?

So for this reason an inertial frame changes uniformally at the same rate. If this was not so inertial frames would be non-simultaneous, which is not what is observed within inertial frames.
Click to expand...

Yet why do inertial frames differ in their results if they are not non-simulteneous?

Question: Are you postulating c as an infinitely small period of time that makes up all other periods of time?

You may recall our discussion about circular and self referencing systems and how one can only see outside of this Samsara only in abstraction or imagination.......
Click to expand...

Through his imagings of the observer at the pond's edge and the observer in the row-boat?

We shall discuss this later this evening. I'm about to go to sleep after I check the rest of the board quick.
 
Would not matter be energy going at increasibly -slow- speeds in this case?

A question: How is everything moving at C in this system? E=MC2 depends on matter -not- moving at C.

Moreover, certainly we can see time right before our eyes?
Click to expand...

I am not sure but possibly we are confusing Matter with Mass here.....

If a ball passed before your eyes leaving a trail behind it one could say we are witnessing time but at any given moment a snapshot will reveal that movement can not be witnessed except with reference to memory of prior location thus temporal. Time can not be observed to pass directly in other words. The event we are actually observing is infinitely small in duration.

Also maybe saying that Albert was peeking outside the system is not usin gthe best approach. Possibly taking a peek at the entire system would be better.

catch you later then
 
Quantum Quack:

I am not sure but possibly we are confusing Matter with Mass here.....
Click to expand...

True, but is there any -matter- which does not have mass?

If a ball passed before your eyes leaving a trail behind it one could say we are witnessing time but at any given moment a snapshot will reveal that movement can not be witnessed except with reference to memory of prior location thus temporal. Time can not be observed to pass directly in other words. The event we are actually observing is infinitely small in duration.
Click to expand...

Granted, at any given moment we are seeing Zeno's arrow. Only together do we see the motion.
 
Maybe I should refrain from stating my assessment for a moment and ask what you think causes time to flow in our SIFU and why it is uniform throughout that universal reference frame?
 
I tend to think that the only solution is that everything is vibrating at the rate of ´c´. To explain how a photon can be released with out having to accelerate the source only has to be travelling at ´c´to begin with.

If matter is vibrating at ´c´then the release of a photon would occur without accelerating thus maintaining the postulate of invariance of lights speed regardless of the velocity of the source. [ keeping in mind that I do not necessarilly hold to the existence of a photon to begin with, however it is useful tool to help describe a "mechanical model" ]
Any way what ideas do others have as to the generation of uniform time?
 
Quantum Quack:

Just thought of something funny: Sifu is the word for "master" in Chinese martial arts (equivalent to the Japanese "sensei").

As to time:

Time is measured (but is not caused) by motion and the uniformness would be owing to its infinitely-small "now" durations not allowing for out of synch measurements.

I tend to think that the only solution is that everything is vibrating at the rate of ´c´. To explain how a photon can be released with out having to accelerate the source only has to be travelling at ´c´to begin with.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps the photon begins much faster and is only stopped at C when it reaches it?

That's a question: Is it possible to accelerate past C but then be stopped to C if massless?
 
later in the thread after getting agreement about time in an inertial frame I was going to suggest that because movement that is non-inertial or relative to the sifu universe is attempting but failing to have avelocity faster than ´c´ and as ´c´can not be exceeded it means that time must dilate and length must contract so as to maintin this innate rate of change universally at ´c´regardless of relative velocity.

So what I am proposing is that time is generated by teh movement of energy that is ccnstantly travelling at ´c´
And when that energy is forced to travel faster than ´c´by relative velocity it must effecively slow down to maintain the static rate of ´c´ thus time must slow down or dilate to accommodate the change in velocity from being static and inertial to being relatiev and non-inertial. So as th emass acceleerates the energy must slow down unless the entire unievsre accelrates simultaneously which would effect no attempt to change the rate of change.

What this means is that ultimately the MIFU [Multiple inertial Frame UNiverse] universe must be simultaneous in absolute time and relative in the rate of time.

Which is why I keep coming back to this issue.

However by focussing on the question :

How is time maintained as absolute in an inertial frame or SIFU?

We may find the reaosn why time may dilate in a MIFU [ multiple inertial Frame universe ]

Therefore come to understand the genisis of time and it´s function when velocity exceeds the static SIFU velocity of zero
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top