Comments on: Time the Destroyer

By: Faizan sarwar

Faizan sarwar — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:16:31 +0000

Time is always related to matter,and it has a constant behaviour which depends upon mass.So,if matter is destroyer or creater than time will be.
And, anything else is only human mind understanding.

By: Sai Prahlad K

Sai Prahlad K — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 08:12:52 +0000

Visit my blogspot http://observationsontime2012.blogspot.in/?view=classic for more information

By: Sai Prahlad K

Sai Prahlad K — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 03:43:03 +0000

@ Sean and others: Recently (2 days back) I published my paper on time, and I think you guys will like it, If you like this video. @ Sean: Please scrutinize my paper. @ all: You can download my paper here in http://iosrjournals.org/journals/iosr-jap/pages/v1i3.html The title is called observations on time 2012. Thank you, Sincerely Sai Prahlad K

By: devsing

devsing — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:35:57 +0000

13700000000 x 365 x 24 x 60 x 60 x300000 x 2 way = 2.6 x 10^23 voila!

By: Phillip Helbig

Phillip Helbig — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 07:39:14 +0000

@18: He’s referring to the size of the observable universe.

We don’t know the size of the universe. Current observations imply that it is either infinite or finite but very big.

By: LaserGuy

LaserGuy — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 01:54:12 +0000

I was not aware that we had actually discovered the size of the universe – I was under the impression that it was either infinite, or some unfathomably large number?

But then I noticed that, given that he expressed the value in kilometers, the stated size seemed suspiciously small? According to NASA, the distance just to one of the NEAREST superclusters (Coma) is 2.83×10^21 kilometers – is that distance really 1/35th the entire width of all of creation? I’m beginning to feel downright cramped!

Converted to the more appropriate light-years, his claimed size makes even less sense. 10^23 kilometers is roughly 10.57 billion light years.

But as even many of us amateur astronomers know, just the fraction of the total universe that is observable from here is about 93 billion light years across! And every study I have read to date states that the universe is either infinite, or if finite, has a minimum possible size MANY times larger than even the 93 billion light year portion we can observe.

So how can the universe be only 10.47 billion light years across? Was there some new discovery that proves the universe to be a lot more cramped than everybody thought? Or did some cosmologist make a mistake of quite literally cosmic proportions? LOL!

By: Brett

Brett — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 16:52:16 +0000

As far as smoothness is concerned; I guess I always look at it as equilibrium of any sort being a certain type of smoothness. More evidence for “Time” being a dimension, the absence of smoothness is the existence of differentiation…Time. If every measurement of space was at an energy level of 500 GeV (like the pre-Big Bang singularity) and it never changed, that seems to be smooth in that there is no variation. But likewise, if it’s 1.3 X 10 ^-45 eV (darn (edit) near nothing in existence), the same smoothness. But back to Time as a dimension, it all depends on how energy is distributed like Sean is saying. The less variation there is, the smoother “existence” becomes. Which is why differential mathematics is the language of physics, but that’s how I see it; and I may see it incorrectly

By: Sean Carroll

Sean Carroll — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 16:42:29 +0000

Steve– The smoothness of the universe is being destroyed, temporarily. Later it will be restored, as galaxies move apart and black holes evaporate. There is no simple relationship between entropy and smoothness; it depends on the density. (High entropy = smooth only when density is low enough.)

By: Phillip Helbig

Phillip Helbig — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 07:20:49 +0000

@13: No, because of gravity. The initial universe had a very low entropy, and it is evolving toward a higher entropy. The inital universe looks like it should have a high entropy, and perhaps look like it is evolving to a lower entropy. However, this neglects gravity. (Of course, evolution is from low to high entropy, not vice versa.)

By: Alec

Alec — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 21:51:55 +0000

John @ #3: In order to correctly time-sequence segments of the talk, the level of presentation would need to betray an increasing level of depth and/or sophistication. What’s being destroyed, then, is the level of ignorance of the audience — or perhaps more poetically, the domain of the unknown is suffering degradation.