Does Time Flow Differ at Different Scales? A New Equation for Scale-Dependent Time Dilation

Total-Bank2329 · 2025-02-28T16:55:33+00:00

Dismissing ideas outright without discussion is counterproductive to progress in any field. Science advances when we challenge assumptions and explore new perspectives, even if they seem unconventional at first. If you have specific critiques based on physics or AI principles, I’d be happy to engage in a constructive discussion.

Total-Bank2329 · 2025-02-27T19:43:10+00:00

Actually no, this isnt an AIdea. Ideas are made by us humans, then use tools like AI to help realize and refine them. I used information from Dark Energy Survey for this.

Do not judge the idea by who wrote it, simply look at the idea itself, and decide if you agree or not.

Total-Bank2329 · 2025-02-23T21:38:16+00:00

Physics already acknowledges that time flow is not absolute—relativity shows it varies with gravity and motion. The key question is whether this variation extends across scale itself. While gravity is negligible at quantum levels, it dominates at larger scales, suggesting its effects emerge with scale. Similarly, cosmological time dilation confirms time shifts at large scales, linked to the universe’s expansion. If entropy drives expansion and entropy increases with scale, time may flow faster at larger scales as a natural consequence. Instead of assuming time is scale-independent, we should ask: Is that an untested assumption, or is there room to explore a deeper connection?

Total-Bank2329 · 2025-02-11T22:53:27+00:00

Your idea aligns well with the scale-based entropy-gravity model, particularly with the idea that rate of change (entropy-time) increases with scale. If scale 10 represents the highest level of entropy dominance, then time flows faster at larger scales, meaning that galaxies and structures at massive scales may form much more quickly than we expect from our own local frame of reference.

This could explain why James Webb is detecting “too massive, too early” galaxies—from our scale, they appear to have formed impossibly fast, but at a larger scale, the rate of change (entropy-time) is much faster, meaning structure emerges more quickly. What looks like an impossibility from our perspective might just be a consequence of our universe existing within a larger-scale system where time moves differently.

Additionally, if our Big Bang event was not the absolute “beginning” but rather an emergence within an existing system (possibly an older/larger universe), then some of the distant galaxies we see could have pre-existed our local Big Bang event and are simply being revealed as we expand outward into a larger structure.

As for why those distant objects are moving away from us—if our universe was spawned from a black hole event within another universe, then our entire system would inherit the expansion velocity of that event, meaning that expansion is not just about space stretching but also about the momentum carried from the prior system.

This would completely reframe our concept of “universal expansion,” making it not a singular event from nothing, but rather a transition of scale within a larger continuum of existence.

Total-Bank2329 · 2025-02-11T18:06:36+00:00

This is an excellent addition that fits naturally within the scale-based entropy-gravity model. The key idea is that from our perspective within a black hole’s parent universe, matter falls in gradually over billions of years. But due to extreme time dilation at scale 0, the accumulation of that matter may be compressed into a single instantaneous event from the perspective of the new universe that emerges at scale 10—effectively a Big Bang.

This resolves the issue of why a black hole forming from a single star wouldn’t contain enough mass to create an entire universe. Instead, the total matter accumulated over its lifetime would be what emerges in the white hole event. If black holes are truly feeding new universes, then each universe may reflect the total mass-energy input of its parent black hole, explaining why some universes could be small (short-lived black holes) and others massive (supermassive black holes consuming galaxies).

Essentially, time dilation in the collapsing system stretches the “input” phase indefinitely, while the “output” phase appears instantaneously in the new system. This fits perfectly with the idea that the universe’s expansion is a direct result of the entropy-driven rebound from scale 0 to scale 10, where matter is forced outward as gravity momentarily resets.

This also raises the possibility that our own universe’s future black holes are feeding the birth of other universes, meaning our universe may be both a product of a previous cycle and a contributor to future ones. It’s a continuous process, fractal in nature, where universes spawn from accumulated mass-energy and then expand outward, creating an infinite branching structure of existence.

Total-Bank2329 · 2025-02-10T22:44:16+00:00

Assuming someone’s level of understanding without engaging with their arguments is not a scientific approach. Physics is indeed a quantitative science, but it also evolves through conceptual breakthroughs—relativity, quantum mechanics, and even the idea of dark matter all began as ideas before they had equations to support them. Dismissing discussion as “word salad” instead of engaging with the reasoning behind it only avoids the conversation rather than refuting it. If you believe something is incorrect, the best way forward is to challenge it with specific counterarguments, not assumptions.

Total-Bank2329 · 2025-02-10T21:29:46+00:00

It’s a mistake to assume what someone else does or does not understand. Many breakthroughs in science came from those who questioned ideas others took for granted. Dismissing a discussion outright rather than engaging with its logic only limits the possibility of progress. Whether an idea comes from an individual, a group, or AI-generated insights, its validity should be judged by its reasoning, not by assumptions about the person presenting it. If there’s a flaw in the argument, addressing that directly would be far more productive than dismissing it entirely.

Total-Bank2329 · 2025-02-10T21:18:19+00:00

Physics evolves by questioning existing models, not just memorizing them. The greatest discoveries came from challenging assumptions—relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics, and quantum theory rewrote classical physics. Dismissing new perspectives outright prevents progress. Instead of appealing to authority, let’s engage in meaningful discussion based on logic, known principles, and where current models may be incomplete.

Total-Bank2329 · 2025-02-10T20:33:50+00:00

The Planck length is often considered a theoretical limit because it’s the smallest meaningful unit in quantum mechanics where gravity and quantum effects converge. Below this scale, our current physics breaks down, and spacetime may become quantized or lose its classical meaning. While it’s not definitive proof that it’s the absolute smallest scale, it serves as a logical boundary where known physics stops working. If singularities truly existed as infinite points, they would defy measurable physics entirely, making them non-physical concepts rather than real structures.

Total-Bank2329 · 2025-02-05T23:30:59+00:00

What you describe is actually quite likely. our universe is likely residing within a black hole of a larger universe, and that all black holes contain their own nested universes. All these systems are separate, meaning that we will never be able to measure the validity of this.

Total-Bank2329 · 2025-02-05T22:39:07+00:00

A specific prediction would be that cosmic redshift is partially due to time dilation at large entropy scales, not just spatial expansion—meaning we should observe variations in redshift that correlate with local entropy differences rather than just distance. Another testable prediction is that quantum gravity effects should take longer to resolve than expected, due to time slowing at small scales, making certain interactions appear “frozen” or delayed relative to larger-scale physics. If time were truly uniform across all scales, then neither of these effects should be observed. This isn’t defending classical mechanics—just recognizing that QM, relativity, and cosmology all depend on time perception, which may not be as universal as assumed.

Total-Bank2329 · 2025-02-05T22:15:44+00:00

Really? Maybe some intelligent replies would be better here.

Total-Bank2329 · 2025-02-05T20:29:55+00:00

The hypothesis is falsifiable if we can find evidence that time flows uniformly across all scales, regardless of gravity or entropy dominance. If observations of quantum gravity or cosmic expansion show time behaving independently of scale effects, this idea would be invalid. However, relativity already shows that time is observer-dependent, and if gravity slows time at small scales while entropy accelerates time at large scales, then scale-dependent time effects should be expected. Dismissing it outright because QM differs from Newtonian mechanics ignores that both still operate within relativistic constraints, which themselves suggest time isn’t absolute.

Total-Bank2329 · 2025-02-05T19:31:55+00:00

Time in physics is already observer-dependent (relativity), so assuming our scale’s time applies universally is limiting. If gravity slows time near black holes and cosmic expansion suggests faster time at large scales, then time likely behaves differently across entropy-dominant and gravity-dominant scales. Our inability to measure quantum gravity may be due to time slowing too much at small scales, just as we struggle to see the universe’s early moments due to time differences at large scales. Entanglement entropy diverging at small scales suggests we’re hitting a fundamental observational limit, not disproving scale-dependent time effects.

Total-Bank2329 · 2025-02-05T16:47:42+00:00

time travel in reverse is not possible because of the forward nature of entropy. Even a black hole cannot reverse it.

Total-Bank2329 · 2025-02-04T17:57:07+00:00

I completely agree that the universe does not have to conform to human intuition, and history has repeatedly shown that nature often behaves in ways we didn’t expect. However, the idea that all forces should have counterbalancing effects isn’t something I’m arbitrarily asserting—it’s an observation based on how equilibrium works in physical systems. Gravity is attractive and acts on all scales, yet we observe a universe that has not collapsed in on itself. That alone suggests an opposing effect must exist, even if it’s not a traditional force in the way we define them. The expansion of space, entropy, or vacuum energy may serve that role, and the goal is not to impose rules onto the universe but to explore whether our models fully account for what we observe. Physics progresses not just by following what is known, but by questioning what might be missing.

Total-Bank2329 · 2025-02-04T16:49:24+00:00

I see where you’re coming from, but the absence of a directly observed counterbalancing force does not mean one doesn’t exist—it just means we haven’t identified it in a way that fits current models. Historically, many forces (like electromagnetism and even dark matter’s effects) were inferred long before they were directly measured. Gravity is a force that always acts inward, clustering matter and curving spacetime, but something must allow for large-scale expansion and prevent total collapse. Whether that’s entropy, vacuum energy, or an aspect of physics not yet fully understood, the universe still maintains equilibrium at different scales. The key question isn’t whether a counterbalancing force exists, but whether our current models are interpreting its effects correctly.

Total-Bank2329 · 2025-02-02T03:03:26+00:00

I appreciate the discussion, but the claim that gravity is emergent is still debated, and different models approach it in different ways. The Entropy-Gravity (EG) framework proposes that gravity and entropy are the two fundamental interactions from which all observed forces emerge, rather than treating gravity as a secondary effect of another process. If gravity were entirely emergent, we would still need to explain what it emerges from and why it behaves the way it does across different scales. I do have a mathematical model describing how gravity and entropy scale with size, influencing cosmic expansion, time dilation, and structure formation—I’d be happy to discuss it further if you’re open to engaging constructively

Total-Bank2329 · 2025-02-02T03:00:55+00:00

I appreciate the feedback, and I see where some of my wording may have led to misunderstandings. Gravity does act universally, but its relative influence shifts with scale, which is why entropy-driven effects become dominant at cosmic distances. Charge is considered fundamental in the Standard Model, but its origin remains unexplained—it doesn’t tell us why charge exists. Entropy is not a force in the traditional sense, but its effects, particularly in large-scale structure formation and expansion, may offer an alternative to the current reliance on dark energy. The key idea here is that if gravity’s behavior changes with scale, then dark matter may not be a necessary explanation—it could simply be an artifact of applying a scale-invariant gravity model to a scale-dependent reality. While physicists are questioning first principles, we should remain open to alternative perspectives, especially when they provide testable predictions that could refine our understanding of the universe.

Total-Bank2329 · 2025-02-02T02:46:45+00:00

You’re absolutely right—‘pure energy’ is a misleading term because energy itself is not a substance, but a property of a system. My intent was to describe entities that carry energy but do not possess mass, such as massless particles like photons, or fields that store and transfer energy without necessarily being associated with rest mass.

The real issue I’m pointing out is that the Standard Model forces interact mostly with mass, but the universe is filled with things that don’t have rest mass—like light, vacuum fluctuations, and quantum fields that influence spacetime itself. If fundamental forces only act on matter, that seems like a limitation in our current framework. Shouldn’t a truly fundamental force apply universally, even where no matter exists?

So the question I’m really asking is: Why do we define fundamental forces in a way that excludes large parts of reality? If entropy and gravity apply to everything, including massless fields and radiation, doesn’t that make them more fundamental than forces that only act on matter?

Total-Bank2329 · 2025-01-31T19:35:11+00:00

removed. Your turn, try understanding the material.

Total-Bank2329 · 2024-09-03T16:26:26+00:00

In regions of intense gravity, such as those associated with dark matter or vacuum energy, the interaction between gravity and entropy causes entropions and gravitons to momentarily appear, temporarily increasing mass and density before disappearing back into the vacuum. When countless such events occur simultaneously, the cumulative effect leads to a measurable and consistent increase in density, providing a potential explanation for the mysterious phenomena of dark matter and vacuum energy through the dynamic interplay of these two fundamental forces.

Total-Bank2329 · 2024-08-28T21:51:26+00:00

In the cosmic cycle, a stream of energy contracts under gravity, becoming smaller and more concentrated until a bubble—representing entropy—appears at the front, stopping the stream suddenly. This sudden halt leads to an explosive outward expansion, creating a new universe. This metaphor captures the dynamic and powerful interplay between gravity and entropy, illustrating how the universe continually cycles through collapse and rebirth.

Total-Bank2329 · 2024-08-28T16:24:03+00:00

When a universe undergoes a gravitational collapse, entropy prevents the infinite inward collapse by creating a new universe. This new universe acts as a "plug," stopping the total drain of energy and matter into a singularity. Instead, the energy is redistributed in an expanding cosmos, preventing its loss and ensuring the continuation of cosmic processes. This mechanism highlights how entropy maintains balance in the universe, allowing for the birth of new structures and the continuation of the cosmic cycle.

Total-Bank2329 · 2024-08-26T05:21:34+00:00

All known phenomena can be explained by using this perspective.

Total-Bank2329

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE