OMG Time Theory?

I believe in some sort of infinite size ratio thingy...

Think of it like this: Matter is made of molecules.atoms. Molecules are made of atoms. Atoms are made of clusters with encircling electrons. What if these Atoms are tiny universes? The clusters are the centers of these universes, and the electrons are mega clusters of galaxy clusters orbiting the universe-centers. The quarks could be galaxy clusters, things that make up quarks galaxies... You get the point.

The reason why our universe hasn't been destroyed through some form of reaction and whatnot is because of the perception of time. Time is the speed of energy. If planets orbited faster, then time itself would seem faster.

Our perception of time is slower compared to the perception of time of the living beings within the smaller universes... however, this works the opposite way, too: larger universes have even slower perceptions of time than ours. This means that, within the time perception of the larger universe, our universe could become a part of a reaction at any time. Our universe could be moving from one point to another as larger pieces of matter (made of universes our size) move toward a reaction faster.

MORE TO COME... THEORY ON INFINITE LIFE... AND TIME TRAVEL...

 

You tag along with the big bang and universe expansion theories like a charm, however something troubles me, let's say.. a chair. A chair is made of a matter which is made of molecules which is made of atoms which are clusters with encircling electrons.. according to your theory i might have a bunch of universes in my chair? Don't get me wrong, this is a rather interesting subject, I'm just looking for a better understanding of it xD

 

That's what came through to me as well, evolvyton, but it'd be true the other way round as well - we might be part of a huge chair.

I actually don't see why that would be impossible.

 

I kinda like this theory, I never thought about the time part though, but with that added, it makes a lot more sense why our universe has gotten so much time without being "destroyed" in some sort of reaction happening in the universe "above". Best part is that one day, microscopes and other technology might become uber enough to prove this theory right or wrong.

 

This idea is interesting, if it turns out to be true then both strong and week nuclear forces (the forces that we think are what holds atoms, electrons, etc. together) could be attributed to simply smaller versions of the electromagnetic and gravitational forces.

Though (assuming big bang is correct) in our universe there is no apparent "center" and according to this theory, micro mega galaxy clusters (Electrons) are orbiting the "center" of these universes. Which could mean that A. they aren't micro universes or B. they operate under a different physics/ were created in another way. It could be possible that each "level" of universe had a different way of creation, for example our universe and all its sister universes making up an even larger universe were created via various big bangs, while the "level" under us was created through another method and so on and so on.

note: I don't know too much about the subject, my ignorance has possibly already shown itself.

 

EMR, I have thought about this almost the exact same way as you have. We might be the lowest lvl, or we might be the highest lvl.

Maybe the Big Bang was just a reaction that created a specific molecule that we are part of.

 

It is possible that our current universe IS in such a state of awkward movement due to a reaction, which resulted IN the big bang. Possibly instead of a highly dense ball, our universe was organized as explained above.

Furthermore, I proved my theory of infinite life wrong to myself last night, so I'm going to skip that bit.

Time Travel: I kind of have to go, but here's a short description of it.

Since time is the speed of energy, this means that if object A is moving slower than object B, then it's energy is being transferred slower. Therefore, the difference of the energy speeds is slowly increasing. This means that, compared to object B, object A is falling behind on a linear scale, which can then be called "traveling back in time". Furthermore, object B, compared to object A, is "traveling forward in time". Voila, time travel is based off of energy speed ratios.

Note that this is not based on direction of the object's movement. That is simply the style of the energy release. This is based on the amount of energy being released in one object compared to the amount of energy being released in another object.



As for the chair question, yes, all matter is made of universes... and likewise: all universes are made of matter.

 

Your time travel theory... uhhh... can you explain that a little more clearly? If Object A is "falling behind" object B then wouldn't that just mean that time (speed of energy) is simply moving slower for Object A than it is for Object B? Neither object would really be traveling forward or backwards in time, only appearing to from the perspective of its counterpart object.

note: I've got a strange feeling that I just made some really big error in what I just posted, Sorry about my ignorance, stuff like this is quite beyond what I will be studying for the next 4 years.....

 

I have a similar theory: I can hardly believe that there is nothing smaller than an atom, or a hadron or a gluon or a meson or whatever you call the smallest particle you know, and nothing bigger than our universe, or the creation or the all or the time-space continuum or whatever you call it. There might be something smaller that builds and rules what we currently know as the smallest existing particles, and something bigger beyond everything we can see and picture.

Another universes? Maybe, this would makes sense somehow, from the point of view of our universe as a system closing on itself like a 8, with meeting extrems, but on another hand this sounds so completely unbelievable and impossible...

I don't like this statement "Since time is the speed of energy" on another hand: I was not aware that "energy" had a speed, and that this speed was time. Time looks like much more to me like a general universal energy-like thing ruling the whole universe.

 

IO, that's the point. "Moving slower" (not the exactly correct term, but you used it...) IS moving back in time... Our time is based off of our planet's rotation and orbit, and somewhat the moon's orbit. Think if our planet was moving faster. That would modify our view on time.

Of course, I'll have to do more research on the basis of hours, minutes, and seconds, but I'm sure that, if certain attributes of certain things are changed, they would seem faster or slower.

Time is a human perspective, and should be treated as such.



Jissé, time is the "speed of energy" in the sense that a certain amount of energy is being released at a (for all practical purposes) constant rate from Earth/Gravity etc. causing it to orbit at a certain speed. As mentioned above, think of the rate of releasing of speed as being faster. This would cause our perception of time to be faster. It's a lot larger concept than just this small "perception" example, but if you didn't understand it the first time, I won't be able to re-explain it.

 

we cant be immortal
even if we go to a dimension/planet that time will seem slower or stops,
our cells will still degenerate, and cells doesnt care about time

 

Why would it? If the planet used to do a revolution within 10 hours, like Jupiter, we would have 10 hours long day and that's it, and therefore probably 70 hours long weeks and so on. But if you would just accelerate the rate of the current revolution time of the planet, everybody will just be like "wtf is going on? it's 03.17am and I just finished my lunchtime, and don't really feel I need to go to bed!". Our race and everything on this planet has been designed for 24 hours long days, and I really doubt changing this duration with just a fingersnap will change everything in our view on time.

Our view on time is as much based on our feelings, our view on things and so on, that on just the planet itself.
You can wait for the final results of the most important exam in your life and feel you are waiting for centuries, you can wait in the waiting room of the surgery, for the report regarding the health of somebody you love, and feel it was just 5 minutes while you waited 45, you can consider a dinner an endless boredom while it just actually lasted 2 hours, you can be about to die and realise all the things you did in your life and all the things you planned to do but didn't for some reason within a couple of seconds, and you can dream having crossed the whole country by walking, while it just laster few minutes in "the real world".

The planet does not rule everything regarding our view on time.

Our planet completes a revolution within 23 hours, 56 minutes and few seconds, there is no much more research to perform regarding these usual units of time. The units you have on your watch or computer are not exactly those "used" regarding the planet (else the planet would spin in a perfect 24 hours time), but this estimate is enough for common things.

Not sure, this can be a universal perspective as well.
The second is a human unit, but the time may be something beyond everything we could imagine.

 

ok sir you just contradicted yourself... You gave a bunch of examples about humans having different perspectives on time then you said it's not a human perspective. Also, the Earth example was based off of when time was just starting to be measured. More to coMe; at school.

 

interesting theory, explains the big bang

your time travel works in relation with other universes, however unless we could cross these it would have no effect on humans.

 

It's an interesting theory for sci-fi, but with no evidence or way to test it, it's about as reasonable as the idea that the universe was created by some guy named Steve who has a weekend job at a cosmic Office Max.


Some major problems you need to address with your theory:

-The universe does not have a center around which galaxies/planets revolve - the universe is either expanding from or collapsing toward the center (inconclusive as to which); it's possibly a flux, but no spin.

-Protons and neurons are each composed of three quarks (ups and downs). An electron is much smaller and not composed of quarks. Say the neuron is the center of a universe; how is it divisible by three parts? (hint: "galaxy clusters" = wrong answer) Same goes for protons.

-A neuron is solid matter. if the universe is expanding (in line with the "Big Bang" theory), the center of it would be space or gas.

-"time" cannot be "speed" as they are two different theoretical properties clearly defined in our language. speed = change / time; time = change / speed. By saying time = speed (of anything), you're implying change does not exist. A simple example for change in energy is the speed of light - if energy did not change, it would have no speed.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRWwI61so5Q&feature=related

Check it out! It's awesome!

 

I haven't read any posts, with that said:

Time doesn't exist, time was created by man as a means to keep records of things that happened and things that will happen. But time doesn't exist, there is no giant device recording time so that we can hit the rewind button and go back in time. As george carlin puts it, there is no present, there is recent past and immediate future. When something happens, that moment is gone, it never comes back, when you take a step, you can't take it back again, you are constantly going from moment to moment non-stop.

I could elavorate more on that tomorrow, but its 4am and I want to talk about time travel as well.

Time travel. Simple answer? impossible.

Now, lets use a simple logical explanation why its not possible(even if it was) to travel back in time:

Why would you go back in time? to change something? to buy microsoft shares? to stop something? well, lets, for the sake of argument, think that you can travel back, once you get there you go and do whatever you went to do and then come back to the future. well, what do you think happens now? you think you can just go cash in those microsoft shares? wrong, because if you go back and change something it means what you changed never happened, and if it never happened then you never had the need to go change it, thus even if you could time travel you can't because you would be stuck in a paradox where you try to change something but changing it prevents you from trying to change it in the first place.

I'll explain it better later tomorrow or when i get some time, its hard thinking and writing with my eyes shutting down...

 

In contradiction to George Carlin: The past was, but is not anymore; the future will be, but is not yet; therefore, now is the only time concept that is.

Also, much of what you have said either correlates with my ideas, or is nullified by my ideas.


On a side note, read Artemis Fowl: The Time Paradox for some unique fiction based on your time travel conundrum... but read the first 5 books before you read that one first. ;D

 

@Zerodown: That part about time not existing, could be true.
Also, your second part about time travel... Paradoxes! Yay! Let me explain:

If I were to go back in time, if I could, and meet my great grandfather and try to kill him. What would happen? You'd think that because my great-grandfather died which means he never had my grandfather, and never had my father, and never had me, that would leave the question of if I didn't exist, who was the one who went back and killed my great-grandfather?

I have an answer. It's impossible, something is bound to stop me from killing my great-grandfather? Why? Because, we know that he didn't die. He lived long enough to have everyone who descends from him.

Another example: Say I go back and try to stop JFK's assassination. I can't because right now in the present, we know that he was assassinated. So my efforts to stop his death never succeeded. Get it? It may be confusing but... It makes sense.

 

That paradox works in more than one way, though. Let's say I go back in time to attempt to assassinate JFK. I have an elaborate disguise, and since I have the power to travel back in time, I could easily create a passable identity for that timeframe. Then I manage to kill JFK, and plan it out so that somebody else takes the blame.

The thing is, I didn't decide to go back in time and kill JFK until after he had been deemed dead. This means that the cause of his death did not come around until after he died. Therefore, your theory suggests that time is not linear, but a tangled mess similar to present-day diagrams of molecules.