Gravity Slows Time

~cornys~ · Aug 29, 2009 10:20 PM

Well beleive it or not it is true.... here's a link to a site with information and that can explain better than I will: http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/Outrea … low_Time?/

I didn't get this from that particular artical but I think that Gravity slows time because (with it being the 4th demention) Time is pulled dencer around the object and there for our progression through it is slowed down... Just why I think that is since I have never found out why...

What do you guys think about it?

Neotyguy40 · Aug 30, 2009 3:37 AM

No offense, but old news...

Did you know that 1 day is actually 16-18 hours due to the gravity from the galactic center and the sun? It just seems like 24 hours to us.

cheesypower · Aug 30, 2009 2:24 PM

Actually, according to Einstein's special theory of relativity, there is no absolute time. here, let me explain:

2 bolts of lightning strike a railroad track simultaneously. a man standing near the track between the two flashes will see both simultaniously, and will conclude they struck at the same time. however, a person in a train travelling on the same track will see the closest flash first, and thus judge that the closest flash struck first. who's right?

they both are. according to Einstein, time is relative. in other words, the time something happened can only be determined when compared, or held relative to, some other action. hence the term theory of relativity.

by the by, if no one understands this, I understand. it took me a while to figure out what he meant too!

~cornys~ · Aug 30, 2009 5:32 PM

well.... yeah sort of.... quantum physics would seam to have another explanation that Time would be the 4th demention....

It's old news to me but where ever I say it nobody knows this so I figured that to most people it would be old news...

quantum physics claimes that time is a plyable demention as like up and down, right and left, and forward and back wards.... but we are set into an un stopable motion through this demetion... however around gravitationaly charged objects it is bent and therefor it's speed changed....

something similer to that....... how ever General Relativity and Quantum Physics both have slight holes in them... so neither is completely correct... but both are really close....

Cynder is cute · Aug 30, 2009 10:24 PM

This is all so complicated.
I always thought time was an illusion for some reason.
Maybye one day time will cease to exist. And who knows? Maybye that day is closer than we think.
The thought of time not existing is probobally too much for our current mind standards.

Well, just wanted to put the thought out.

Neotyguy40 · Aug 30, 2009 10:27 PM

Big Bang Theory: Most likely to have happened with scientific proof to back it up.

String Theory: A bunch of desperate people that just wanted to be famous... Almost no proof to help it.

cheesypower · Aug 31, 2009 1:03 AM

actually, there is a new theory about the Akashic field, which is basically an idea that there is a field of what is called in-formation. basically, the idea behind this theory is that as each universe is created, and proceeds until being destroyed, it leaves an imprint on this field of how the matter acted with other matter and such. the next universe whould then travel along these paths set, refining them; the next universe would be more refined; so forth and so on.
still, it makes sense if you think about it. I mean, the universe is only 15.7 billion years old, and the Metaverse is probably 9000 times as old at least. it makes sense for our universe to be so orderly if we're getting into the cycle trillions of trillions of years into the process; we're essentially following set imprints.

DarkMaster · Aug 31, 2009 8:28 AM

wow, this is confusing, i always thought that gravity effects time if some way..........

Neotyguy40 · Aug 31, 2009 8:24 PM

cheesypower wrote:

actually, there is a new theory about the Akashic field, which is basically an idea that there is a field of what is called in-formation. basically, the idea behind this theory is that as each universe is created, and proceeds until being destroyed, it leaves an imprint on this field of how the matter acted with other matter and such. the next universe whould then travel along these paths set, refining them; the next universe would be more refined; so forth and so on.
still, it makes sense if you think about it. I mean, the universe is only 15.7 billion years old, and the Metaverse is probably 9000 times as old at least. it makes sense for our universe to be so orderly if we're getting into the cycle trillions of trillions of years into the process; we're essentially following set imprints.

If they don't have enough proof, it will never be accepted into the scientific community. That's like saying the doughnut shaped universe theory is true...

cheesypower · Aug 31, 2009 11:59 PM

so? the theory of Evolution due to Random Genetic Mutations is accepted everywhere, even though it has been deemed impossible by many mathmeticians and Biologists. here's something that blew me away:

according to the calculations of a group of astrologists, Biologists, and Mathmeticians, the evolution of human concioussness, if following random genetic mutations as believed, would take about 10 to the 10th power to the 123rd power years!!! that number is inconcievable, and definitly does not fit in with the evidence that the Universe is around 15.8 billion years old.

Be careful what you believe. Everyone believed in an "Ether" until Einstein proved them wrong.

cheesypower · Sep 01, 2009 12:03 AM

and also, note the phrase THEORY. a possibility that HAS NOT BEEN PROVED. there are thousands of these accepted by modern science; why not the Akashic Field Theory? Read the book Science and the Akashic Field sometime. the ideas in it will blow you away.

Also, who says the general and special theories of relativity have holes?

Neotyguy40 · Sep 01, 2009 1:41 AM

cheesypower wrote:

and also, note the phrase THEORY. a possibility that HAS NOT BEEN PROVED. there are thousands of these accepted by modern science; why not the Akashic Field Theory? Read the book Science and the Akashic Field sometime. the ideas in it will blow you away.
Also, who says the general and special theories of relativity have holes?

I think you are thinking of hypotheses, not theories.

I am not saying it isn't true, but it's very unlikely. The only reason that genetic theory is accepted is because it's the most likely theory out there.

Now see, Drake's equation has people start thinking of the real possibilities. If amino acids, proteins, and other bio chemicals can come together, they should be able to form under good electrostatic conditions. I think that about 3 billion years ago, electric storms were spread everywhere.

Still not saying it isn't true or not!

cheesypower · Sep 01, 2009 10:04 PM

Back on the subject of whether gravity slows time...

according to Einstein, Time would be affected by motion relative to a planet. In other words, if astronauts left in a spaceship, when they came back to earth, time would have passed less quickly for them than for someone on earth. In other words, I don't think gravity is responsible for slowing time, but I could be wrong.
this is a great discussion, though. look forward to continuing debate. big_smile

Neotyguy40 · Sep 01, 2009 11:03 PM

I don't think 'gravity' is what slows down time. I believe it is speed.

As you approach the speed of light, time becomes very slow, which means that speed can effect time.

If you think of gravity like Einstein did where it is similar to a blanket, then the amount of speed needed to stay still would be the same speed as you would if you were falling, although that would be if it absorbed space around it, which I doubt.

It is possible though, so it may be very possible that gravity can effect time...

dragon protector x · Sep 02, 2009 1:28 AM

*eye twitches* cheesy not that i dont understand everything you have been saying, but im supprised a 15 year old knows half that much you are explaining. Either you are gana be like 17 and out of collage already or something else, but just wow.

But then again we humans decided how time ought to be measured. some planets rotate faster then earth so we compare them to our system of measurement for time. That doesnt mean that time is faster there or not. Thats just like saying if you fell into a black hole *not possible Youd be crush withing a fraction of a second to the infinitesimal point of space and time* You would slow time down that an hour in earth time would prolly be like 300 years in the slowed time of being pulled into the black hole. Because black holes are matter of extreamly large planets crushed into that very small point of space, smaller then a grain of sand.....

cheesypower · Sep 03, 2009 9:10 PM

ok, thank you for your praise, but back on subject, the thing about time, speed, and all of this is that, according to the theory of relativity, time and speed are relative. in other words, it is possible to slow time RELATIVE to earth, but time proceeds as normal for you. it's the same as the idea that comets might actually be standing still, but because we'd be moving relative to the comet, the comet appears to be moving quickly, much like the effect you see looking out the window. mind, I'm just using that as an example, not as actual scientific fact, but the basis remains the same. there is no speed or time except for when you hold one object relative to another.
the fact that Einstein was able to discover this is amazing, no? big_smile

Neotyguy40 wrote:

cheesypower wrote:
and also, note the phrase THEORY. a possibility that HAS NOT BEEN PROVED. there are thousands of these accepted by modern science; why not the Akashic Field Theory? Read the book Science and the Akashic Field sometime. the ideas in it will blow you away.
Also, who says the general and special theories of relativity have holes?
I think you are thinking of hypotheses, not theories.
I am not saying it isn't true, but it's very unlikely. The only reason that genetic theory is accepted is because it's the most likely theory out there.
Now see, Drake's equation has people start thinking of the real possibilities. If amino acids, proteins, and other bio chemicals can come together, they should be able to form under good electrostatic conditions. I think that about 3 billion years ago, electric storms were spread everywhere.
Still not saying it isn't true or not!

Just wanted to say something about this. I'm not saying Drake's equation is wrong, but that doesn't disprove the Akashic field. think about it. if both are right, then something like this probably happened in the past:

the electrostatic conditions, the proteins, the amino acids, everything is in place. the first form of life is created...and dies instantly. another form of life is created, closely following the previous. this dies too, but lives for a few brief seconds. now, more and more forms of life are forming, each improved over the failures of the past. these various forms are different from each other, as they were not all created from the same quantity and quality of proteins/ect. thus, the ancestors of birds are not related to the ancestors of fish, and the reptile is not kin to the mammal.

much more likely than a single common ancestor, because according to natural selection, you can get a terrier from a wolf, but terriers will not create wolves. in other words, as natural selection DELETES unneeded DNA genotypes and such, if all life has a single common ancestor, that ancestor must have the dominant tall trait, but must also have only the recessive short trait, or else everything would be tall... long story short, single ancestor=paradox. multiple different ancestors that follow similar evolutionary paths but are not actually related=no paradox.

{Stormy: Merged double post}

dragon protector x · Sep 04, 2009 2:58 AM

cheesypower wrote:

Just wanted to say something about this. I'm not saying Drake's equation is wrong, but that doesn't disprove the Akashic field. think about it. if both are right, then something like this probably happened in the past:

Like the saying goes: If some thing happens a first time, it wont happen a second, If something happens a second time its sure to happen a thrid and forth time.

Neotyguy40 · Sep 04, 2009 9:27 PM

cheesypower wrote:

Neotyguy40 wrote:
cheesypower wrote:
and also, note the phrase THEORY. a possibility that HAS NOT BEEN PROVED. there are thousands of these accepted by modern science; why not the Akashic Field Theory? Read the book Science and the Akashic Field sometime. the ideas in it will blow you away.
Also, who says the general and special theories of relativity have holes?
I think you are thinking of hypotheses, not theories.
I am not saying it isn't true, but it's very unlikely. The only reason that genetic theory is accepted is because it's the most likely theory out there.
Now see, Drake's equation has people start thinking of the real possibilities. If amino acids, proteins, and other bio chemicals can come together, they should be able to form under good electrostatic conditions. I think that about 3 billion years ago, electric storms were spread everywhere.
Still not saying it isn't true or not!
Just wanted to say something about this. I'm not saying Drake's equation is wrong, but that doesn't disprove the Akashic field. think about it. if both are right, then something like this probably happened in the past:
the electrostatic conditions, the proteins, the amino acids, everything is in place. the first form of life is created...and dies instantly. another form of life is created, closely following the previous. this dies too, but lives for a few brief seconds. now, more and more forms of life are forming, each improved over the failures of the past. these various forms are different from each other, as they were not all created from the same quantity and quality of proteins/ect. thus, the ancestors of birds are not related to the ancestors of fish, and the reptile is not kin to the mammal.
much more likely than a single common ancestor, because according to natural selection, you can get a terrier from a wolf, but terriers will not create wolves. in other words, as natural selection DELETES unneeded DNA genotypes and such, if all life has a single common ancestor, that ancestor must have the dominant tall trait, but must also have only the recessive short trait, or else everything would be tall... long story short, single ancestor=paradox. multiple different ancestors that follow similar evolutionary paths but are not actually related=no paradox.

Well, the thing is, it is very easy to create simple life. Scientists have found ways to align DNA in certain ways and with a certain amount of energy, would be able to bring life together.

Though, the hard part? Multi-cellular organisms...

Even though it has been possible for many single-cell organisms to come to be, multi-cellular organisms are much more fragile, and hard to make. Especially since the DNA not only has to be for each individual cell, but the entire organism.

So far, scientists think that all multi-cellular organisms came from 2 single precursors, 1 for plants, and 1 for animals, and all else were single-celled organisms.

But there is one thing that scientists aren't sure about. Silicon-based life.

Earth life forms are carbon-based, but silicon is an almost immediate replica of carbon with some slight differences. Silicon life exists in theory, and would not be able to form on our planet due to much lacking in silicon. Let's say silicon-life exists, the hydrogen and oxygen would combine exactly the same way to silicon as to carbon, and would be a more powerful version of carbon with many better features for the life-form. One of them would be almost complete heat and cold resistance up to the point of melting or thinning. Which would mean that the amount of space for life could be anywhere from 1/8 AU to about 15 AU, a much more pleasent sign for other life.

My point is, it is very hard to disprove a theory completely. Though if something still doesn't have much scientific evidence other then "I just thought this might have happened", then it could pretty much be discarded.

I actually have a theory myself about how the universe came to be, but even I doubt it is true.

~cornys~ · Sep 06, 2009 3:35 PM

It could not be speed.... The GPS satalights are constantly set back and sycronized with "Earth time"

They are moving at a much higher clip than that of us on Earth yet they move slower..... it is indead gravity....

And the theroy of relativity fails at the (however unimportant) mellecular level... how ever I am never effected by thet small of things... lol

You show me a 5th demention and I'll start to beleive some of these theroys.... and I laugh at gravitrons... lol... Stupid Idea.... lol

But our gravity formula isn't even exact... (moon is 12 meters off of what we calculate that it should be...)

Anyhow.... we know very little more than what we guess beyond what we can observe in our own solar system or near by area (Black Holes, Super Novas, Gamma Ray bursts, ect..

We are sort of dumb really on the whole universe... lol

cheesypower · Sep 06, 2009 9:29 PM

actually, Einstein had two theories of relativity, one on the large scale, which is the one we have been talking about, and one on the microscopic level, which is also known as quantum physics.

also, you're missing the point. you say it's not about speed, but I have been saying that speed and time are two things that are RELATIVE. in other worlds, you are thinking along the line of there being a great universal clock going "tick, tick, tick," but sadly, that clock does NOT EXIST.

Naegling · Sep 07, 2009 12:29 PM

the problem with quantum physocs and relativity is that they conflict each other. but there was a rumor that Einstein had discovered a theory that united both. The Unified Feild Theory, or quantum gravity. But he saw what the knowledge of that could do. If you have a particle accelerator you could smash atoms togather in a way that would bend the space around it and send special particles to any location with as much energy as you wanted. so you had an infinite amount of energy. this could solve all the worlds energy problems or, if it is oriented correctly, compleatly obliterate any place on earth. I read a book about it but i cant remember the name. Ill post it when i remember it.

dragon protector x · Sep 08, 2009 9:31 PM

Naegling, Your post kinda made me think of teleportation on how you worded that, and i know that teleportation doesnt work. The us military sectretly tests it on a battle ship and well they did succeed on teleporting it, but the people on it were either murdged into the metal, or became a vegtable from some thing that happened. i know this from the reports of an ex-military guy who retired from them and was interveiwed on the history channel. X( and dont say the history channel doesnt give any true facts!

#1 Aug 29, 2009 10:20 PM

Gravity Slows Time

#2 Aug 30, 2009 3:37 AM

Re: Gravity Slows Time

#3 Aug 30, 2009 2:24 PM

Re: Gravity Slows Time

#4 Aug 30, 2009 5:32 PM

Re: Gravity Slows Time

#5 Aug 30, 2009 10:24 PM

Re: Gravity Slows Time

#6 Aug 30, 2009 10:27 PM

Re: Gravity Slows Time

#7 Aug 31, 2009 1:03 AM

Re: Gravity Slows Time

#8 Aug 31, 2009 8:28 AM

Re: Gravity Slows Time

#9 Aug 31, 2009 8:24 PM

Re: Gravity Slows Time

#10 Aug 31, 2009 11:59 PM

Re: Gravity Slows Time

#11 Sep 01, 2009 12:03 AM

Re: Gravity Slows Time

#12 Sep 01, 2009 1:41 AM

Re: Gravity Slows Time

#13 Sep 01, 2009 10:04 PM

Re: Gravity Slows Time

#14 Sep 01, 2009 11:03 PM

Re: Gravity Slows Time

#15 Sep 02, 2009 1:28 AM

Re: Gravity Slows Time

#16 Sep 03, 2009 9:10 PM

Re: Gravity Slows Time

#17 Sep 04, 2009 2:58 AM

Re: Gravity Slows Time

#18 Sep 04, 2009 9:27 PM

Re: Gravity Slows Time

#19 Sep 06, 2009 3:35 PM

Re: Gravity Slows Time

#20 Sep 06, 2009 9:29 PM

Re: Gravity Slows Time

#21 Sep 07, 2009 12:29 PM

Re: Gravity Slows Time

#22 Sep 08, 2009 9:31 PM

Re: Gravity Slows Time

Board footer