What is the Universe expanding into..

[leapcat]

My theory of everything: the universe can be defined by the relationship of mass to the rate of time. Gravity and space are byproducts. The universe is not expanding the rate of time is changing. 2/12/2020 leapcat

 

[Galu]

the relationship of mass to the rate of time.

And what, exactly, is this relationship?

 

[leapcat]

The density of mass is directly proportional to the rate of time. Time stops, space is 0, mass forms a singularity. Then time explodes, space exists and what look like a quick expansion is a high rate of time.

 

[Galu]

the rate of time.

The rate of change of a quantity refers to how that quantity changes with respect to time.

So, do you mean the rate of change of time with respect to time? I wonder if dt/dt actually has any physical meaning.

In relativistic physics, there is no such thing as absolute time and time can proceed at a different rate in two different frames of reference, as a function of their relative velocities. So, is it correct to say there is a different rate of change of time in the two frames which manifests itself as a time difference (dilation) between them?

 

[kevinahcc20]

No theory in science is ever proven, simply not yet disproven. Newton's mechanics stood for hundreds of years until Einstein uncovered the flaws. None of those flaws are of any consequence in everyday Earthbound engineering, which is still done in Newtonian terms almost entirely. As to gravity still being a force, once you understand that in space bent by gravity orbital paths are in effect straight lines to an objects momentum, I'm not sure what's left for the "force" of gravity to do.

 

[leapcat]

Yes time strings exist, their velocities are effected by the density of mass. But all time is related.

 

[leapcat]

One clump of mass one string of time; singularity, multiple clumps of mass multiple strings of time; expansion.

 

[Disco-Pete]

The density of mass is directly proportional to the rate of time. Time stops, space is 0, mass forms a singularity. Then time explodes, space exists and what look like a quick expansion is a high rate of time.

What is the catalyst for this explosion?

 

[edbarx]

So, do you mean the rate of change of time with respect to time? I wonder if dt/dt actually has any physical meaning.

In differential calculus:

limit as [B]Δt -> 0 of [/B][B]Δt/[/B][B]Δt = 1[/B]

Reason, you are dividing by the same infinitesimal quantity, and that, always results in unity, 1. The exception is when Δt = 0 the answer for which is indeterminate.

 

[TNT]

The density of mass is directly proportional to the rate of time. Time stops, space is 0, mass forms a singularity. Then time explodes, space exists and what look like a quick expansion is a high rate of time.

"Time" don't exists. What is it really that stops?

Or maybe you would like to define "time"?

Maybe it is the gravity form the Mother Black Hole that is at Ground Zero that when all photons has lost it's ability to swim (i.e. universe gets DARK except the glow from GZ), will be sucked back to GZ and forming the singularity that you are talking about. The Big Crunch. Om which a Big Bang follows. And on it goes. No energy lost or gained within this system = eternity....

//

 

[Galu]

One clump of mass one string of time; singularity, multiple clumps of mass multiple strings of time; expansion.

Multiple words and phrases strung together?

 

[Galu]

In differential calculus:

Thanks for the calculus edbarx, but I'm still left wondering if there is a physical meaning to dt/dt.

 

[kevinahcc20]

dt/dt is mathematical and physical bafflegab.

 

[Galu]

Yes time strings exist

I'm not finding any information on 'time strings'. Would you expand on the topic as I'm a bit behind with my understanding of string theory!

 

[Galu]

bafflegab.

That's a new word to me - translates as gobbledlygook, which is what I thought!

 

[Bonsai]

No theory in science is ever proven, simply not yet disproven. Newton's mechanics stood for hundreds of years until Einstein uncovered the flaws. None of those flaws are of any consequence in everyday Earthbound engineering, which is still done in Newtonian terms almost entirely. As to gravity still being a force, once you understand that in space bent by gravity orbital paths are in effect straight lines to an objects momentum, I'm not sure what's left for the "force" of gravity to do.

Please read the link I posted. The fact is physicists still consider it a force.

You are quoting the effects of gravity, namely the bending of space time. Fact of the matter is we do not have an ideal theory of gravity (google quantum loop gravity for example) and the Higgs Bosun has been implicated in there somewhere as well - there’s a lot of ongoing work in this area. Van de Linde has proposed that it is an emergent property ultimately linked to entropy - so it does not exist directly as a force but that is not what you are saying. He is using String theory to try to unravel the mystery.

 

[Bonsai]

BTW, Ethan Siegel’s blog is a great resource for a lot of this physics stuff

Starts With A Bang! – Medium

 

[Disco-Pete]

I don't get what the problem is. The greater the object, the greater the gravity. What holds an electron in it's orbit? Combine that force exponentially and Viola...gravity commensurate with mass. Simple

 

[Galu]

What holds an electron in it's orbit?

Good question! Care to tell us? It's certainly not answered by comparing Coulomb force with gravitational force.

 

[edbarx]

Good question! Care to tell us? It's certainly not answered by comparing Coulomb force with gravitational force.

The answer for this is well known. The electrostatic force between the electron and the positive nucleus causes the electron to accelerate towards the nucleus resulting in orbital motion. The motion however, is governed by the laws of Quantum Mechanics which impose the limitation of having quantised energy. So, the possible electron orbital velocities are not a continuum but discrete. This quantisation of electron orbital velocities gives rise to energy levels and the characteristic spectra as emitted by excited atoms.