The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 278883 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1675 on: 19/02/2016 22:36:57 »
dark matter is needed when something 'attracts'
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1676 on: 20/02/2016 11:37:48 »
A simple description of my current confusion would be the idea of a two mirror experiment, valid at all locations in a universe, giving you the same exact result of a 'speed', namely 'c'. No matter your own relative speed versus all other heavenly bodies. If you would like to stand at the side where one expect 'clocks' to change due to 'gravitational potentials'  as shown by example NIST, then define the clock as I do, you also will redefine 'c', it becomes just as much a variable as the clock then should be. If you on the other tentacle find my arguments equalizing a clock to 'c' (your local arrow as it becomes) acceptable, also still define 'c' as a constant? And as all experiments we have tells us that it is a constant? I definitely define it as a constant myself. What do we have? A speed that ignore gravitational time dilation? You could argue that the differences are so small as to be negligible though, impossible to measure.

Or you could argue that as 'c' also is the 'clock' (according to my definitions) it becomes impossible to measure (meaning that no matter where you place yourself as the observer of that speed, 'c' equalize the clock). This question also points to the importance of defining exactly what one might mean by naming something a 'constant'. Added to this question is the fact of that different relative motions measuring their local clock versus some other, commonly agreed on, object/clock, all will define it (the far away clock) differently. The last one introduce a parameter called relative motion which, although it may or may not be equivalent to not moving at all, indeed is a 'motion', as can be easily proven.

=
Had to clean my sentences up.
« Last Edit: 20/02/2016 18:37:51 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1677 on: 20/02/2016 11:41:21 »
A simple solution to it is to embrace locality. Doing so your local measurement is your truth, and reality. Us agreeing on our local experiments give us 'constants'. But what about the global representation, the 'whole universe' we see, if one do so?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1678 on: 20/02/2016 11:51:31 »
To me it seems obvious that this global representation doesn't tell us all of how this 'common universe' exist, if I accept the above. And if the universe in some terms is a 'illusion', then propagation (of light) also becomes questionable. And if you think it follows that also uniform, as well as accelerated, motion should fall into such a category I would agree. It doesn't make what we experience less real, but there must be something more to it
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1679 on: 20/02/2016 11:55:52 »
From that one can (slightly more easily :) accept the idea of a accelerating expansion of our universe, as well as me defining it to happen equally in all 'points' of that same universe. And it all hinges on local 'constants', being found to give you a same answer, no matter where or when.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1680 on: 20/02/2016 18:45:45 »
The point with using a two mirror experiment as becoming confusing is that it covers a distance. If you then go by NIST there should be different 'clock rates' light pass, propagating over that distance. And it doesn't really matter how you look at it. Different clock rates over a 'globally done' experiment should make you confused if you think it through :) even disregarding my views on it. It's clocks that we use, and the one we use is local, but light measured this way becomes hard to define as local, doesn't it? It's the dichotomy between looking at this experiment strictly locally, at the same time one has to admit the experiments global definition.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1681 on: 20/02/2016 18:57:36 »
As long as we agree on that it shouldn't matter what sort of relative motion me and my two mirror experiment are in, for 'c' always being 'c'? You also will find that relative motion change the 'clock rates' you measure your local one against. Different speeds (uniform motions) should, as far as I can see, give you different clock rates. Where do you place that difference? Locally? Globally? What we can see is that it is a relation though, you need your wristwatch as well as the one you measure against. And you need relative motion, the word 'relative' also tell us that this is about relations. But your 'local life span' won't change, not according to yourself at least. The seconds won't become 'longer' due to a speed. The same argument should hold locally for a acceleration too.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1682 on: 20/02/2016 19:04:16 »
Against those arguments we have a fact. 'c' is always measured to be 'c', never mind ' gravitational time dilation's ' or 'relative motions'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1683 on: 20/02/2016 19:18:31 »
presuming a accelerating expansion to have a same value no matter where one look for it, you can place it locally, as it being created equally in every 'point of existence'. What becomes a acceleration should then be those points, 'stringed together' over a distance, measured between two heavenly bodies. As they add up you should see a acceleration. The weakness in it :) is that different distances then should present you with different speeds, as the longer the distance the more 'points' existing. If you to it stipulate that each 'newly created point' also should bring with it a same mechanism, creating more points, you end up with something (a vacuum) 'accelerating' much too fast. So maybe you need 'dark matter'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1684 on: 20/02/2016 19:29:58 »
Or maybe one need a new definition of how it works? Add or subtract dimensions? What would 'dark matter' become in a holographic universe for example?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1685 on: 20/02/2016 19:43:48 »
So what am I asking here? :)
Well, do you think 'time' is 'clocks'?

If you think that anything we define also needs a proof of measurement, then 'time' is what is measured by 'clocks'. Can't see any other way to measure time by? Using decay is also a question of clocks, how else could I prove it? So does a local life span change? Not according to your local clock. Does 'c' change? Not according to your local clock.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1686 on: 20/02/2016 19:49:24 »
The next question is how you would define what is 'local'? Should you take it literary? As the closer you can get to a thought up 'point' the more 'local' it must be? Does light propagate?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1687 on: 20/02/2016 19:50:45 »
in the beginning there was constants:)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1688 on: 20/02/2016 19:56:23 »
Those 'constants' are the same presumably, everywhere. What that states is that you can take any point in this universe, or in yourself, and find those constants.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1689 on: 21/02/2016 08:00:48 »
I think that it is possible to look at it two ways. The first-most is experiments, trial and error, learning by what they tell us. As you collect experiments and statistics telling you how the universe acts, the next way becomes possible. It's about looking at those facts, asking yourself how one should make sense of them. And yes, always about time, that's what takes you to this other door of query. I mean :) Wouldn't it be lovely if we could agree on constants being tangibly real? Just like our thoughts are, or do you doubt yourself thinking? That would cut those questions of at their feet. In that case light does not 'propagate', although it is measuring its propagation that gave us the constant.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1690 on: 21/02/2016 08:03:18 »
And yes, it makes sense, although it doesn't..

It's the difference between what I experience, and what is.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1691 on: 21/02/2016 08:25:12 »
As long as the universe builds on logic it should be decipherable.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1692 on: 21/02/2016 08:32:55 »
I'm not too keen on many worlds universes myself. Although I agree that probabilities coexist I prefer a answer in where only one world becomes realizable, the one with the highest probability of existing. That world use time (and three spatial directions). So I won't become a emperor, or even filthy rich:) 'somewhere else'. The reason is those 'bifurcations/splits' leading to other 'bifurcations/splits' ad infinitium, in a infinite amount of 'coexisting' universes, creating new ones, as none of them has a priority.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1693 on: 21/02/2016 08:36:52 »
If none has a priority, then it all coexist. If it all coexist the universe must be static, free will a illusion. What would that make HUP? One creates a logic fallacy presuming that when something happens here it leads to those multitudes of worlds. Why would this world/universe have a priority?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1694 on: 21/02/2016 08:43:06 »
HUP is about the uncertainty of everything, a complementary to 'free will' the way I look at it. In a static universe that's not needed as everything coexist, side by side into smithereens. In that universe we would be automata, no free decisions possible . Physics would be meaningless.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1695 on: 21/02/2016 08:47:33 »
There is one more way I like though. Take a 'static universes', allow for a infinity. Call them probabilities, and let them coexist. Introduce free will, and let it choose amongst probabilities. This/those 'static universe(s)', as 'it' is 'infinite' would then become 'free wills' playground.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1696 on: 21/02/2016 08:49:43 »
Like sparks of light navigating, guessing as well as choosing, together creating the reality we call SpaceTime.
Or maybe a better choice of worlds would be 'observing' SpaceTime.
We're firstly observers and participants.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1697 on: 21/02/2016 08:58:20 »
The choices could then possibly be seen as creating 'time lines'. Probabilities falling out into reality. And to gain its global representation you will need a means of communication, a information universe. That's where 'c' comes in, it's a limit of communication, at least 'meaningful communication'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1698 on: 21/02/2016 09:09:36 »
Which could be seen as if we consist of a 'fault' in something whole. The whole creation of a universe with a direction of time, something local, locked out. That would make 'time', what? A representation of the 'fault'. Time is what gives us the ability to reason the way we do, and see things unfold. The direction gives us the reality unfolding. A Big Bang being something faulty? Or, something allowing the universe to comprehend itself? Yeah, a weird universe, and weird thoughts indeed :)
 

Offline the5thforce

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 74
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1699 on: 21/02/2016 16:21:24 »
the completely incomplete spectrum of infinitely finite infinity:

infinity is incomplete
finity is incomplete infinity
infinite nothing is incomplete
finite nothing is incomplete infinite nothing
infinite something is incomplete
finite something is incomplete infinite something
infinite space is incomplete
finite space is incomplete infinite space
infinite time is incomplete
finite time is incomplete infinite time
permanent is incomplete
temporary is incomplete permanent
temporary is incomplete
permanent is incomplete temporary
infinite permanent is incomplete
finite permanent is incomplete infinite permanent
infinite temporary is incomplete
finite temporary is incomplete infinite temporary
the past is temporary, if you cant completely recall your past it was incomplete
the present is temporary, if you cant completely know whats happening its incomplete
the future is temporary, if you cant completely predict your future it hasnt happened yet
the future is a new space where time hasnt occured, the future is a new time where space hasnt occured
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1699 on: 21/02/2016 16:21:24 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums