0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I hesitate to enter into this deep debate, since I am barely able to understand the debate itself.that being said, it may be that Bogie has addressed the never ending question of theologists "if god does not exist, who created the universe"?might it be that the universe, as he stated, has always existed; and that the universe, in fact, invented/created god?
nice poetry...never realized you had so much soul.
but the thing is, I can see (at least a part) of the universe, so I know it exists...but I have never seen god.
"It means that the universe is not supernatural, it is natural, and anything that seems Supernatural has natural causes the we don't yet understand."...or does not exist.
btw: "soul" was meant to pay tribute to the author's artistic talents (kind of like Aretha Franklyn )
My simple logic is that the twins physically age at different rates when they spend time at different levels of wave energy density. Time simply passed for each twin at the rate that was consistent with their local energy density environments, (high density, slower aging, clocks run slower; low density, faster aging, clocks run faster).
If you could find a way to accept the speculation that there was no beginning to the universe, and you are half way there, lol, and if you could acknowledge that the answer to the paradox about how we could ever get to “now” if time is infinite backwards is in the fact that time simply passes everywhere, but the rate of aging is governed by the local energy density, then the next question is:...
Do you believe that energy is carried through space in the form of waves, i.e., that waves har the mechanism for how energy traverses space? I assume a “yes” to that question, and then ask you what type of waves would you say carry energy through space? I assume the answer you might give is that, “light waves and gravitational waves carry energy through space”. If I am right about how you might answer, then: 1) Would you agree that light waves are emitted by electrons? i assume a "yes".
2) Would you agree that gravitational waves are emitted by objects that have mass (weight in a gravitational field)? I assume a "yes" there too, so do you have a belief about how mass emits gravitational waves?
What’s really happening there though is that one of them has his functionality slowed more than the other, and that isn't time that's slowing.
“ and that isn't time that's slowing”.
If you run a simulation of a universe and have two objects separate and then come back together again with one of them functioning slower than the other such that it is effectively a slowed clock, it is just that - a slowed clock failing to measure all the time that is actually passing.
For the record, I don't believe there was a beginning - I expect that the universe is eternal. Also, even if there was an infinite amount of time before now, it could still get to the point where our now happens because an infinite amount of time can pass in an infinite amount of time. It is our difficulty with comprehending the infinite that is probably at issue.
They can be, but it depends on the speed of functionality of the emitter (and the speed of travel of the detector which classes them as light rather than some other part of the electromagnetic spectrum. A gamma ray can be emitted by something that isn't an electron, for example, but it can be detected as visible light if you're moving the right way relative to it.
That is something I don't understand properly, but I'm led to believe (perhaps incorrectly) that such waves are only generated by accelerations (including decelerations).
When black holes aren't close to merging, for example, they aren't throwing out such waves. In the case of planets orbiting a star, the orbits hardly decay at all, so very little energy is being lost from the system as gravitational waves - the amount lost this way only becomes significant when dealing with extremely massive, compact objects and high speed direction changes.
If you try to move that object into the future faster than the other object (whose functionality is less slowed), it will get to the reunion point first and the other object will be late, so they won't meet up in the way they do in the real universe. In the real universe, they meet up correctly precisely because time does not run at different rates for different objects - it is only the speed of functionality that varies. Just like the simulation, the universe has to run through events in order of past to future, and it has to control the rate at which they move through time to ensure that they meet up in the way that we know they do, which means the clock of the object with slowed functionality is necessarily under-recording the amount of time that is actually going past there.
The same amount of time is going through everywhere in the universe in complete sync - for it to do anything else would cause event-meshing failures (which have never been observed in nature). Any theory that rejects the existence of absolute time is demonstrably wrong, and this is illustrated every time someone tries to simulate such a theory - they always have to cheat to pretend that it works, and that means having some objects' "time" run slow under the governance of a superior system clock which should not be necessary in the simulation if their model worked the way they assert. They simply cheat and lie every single time.
We agree. Let’s take the first part of that statement, “What's really happening there though is that one of them has his functionality slowed more than the other, …”. My agreement on that part is based on the fact that the rate that those objects function relative to each other, the two clocks, the twins, all particles for that matter, is governed by the local wave energy density of their respective environments during their individual periods of functioning.Do you understand why I think that? You don’t have to agree of course, but do you understand the train of logic I am employing?
Time simply passes everywhere, and the rate that time passes as measured by a clock at those various locations varies, governed by the local wave energy density. The rate that clocks, or twins function, or the rate that the individual particles function that make up the clocks or twins, is governed by the wave energy density of the environment in which they are functioning (higher local wave energy density, slower clocks, slower aging of a twin, slower function of particles themselves).
I believe the slowing occurs because the wave-particles that the clock is composed of function slower in an energy density environment that is accelerating relative to the environment of a clock that remains at rest.Do you understand where I am coming from when I say the wave-particles function slower as the wave energy density of their environment increases, i.e., when they are accelerated relative to particles that remain at rest?
It has to do with the speculation that the number of gravitational wave fronts that the moving particles (or moving clock) encounters from the direction of motion during its acceleration period is greater than the number of gravitational wave fronts that the "at rest" clock encounters from that same direction while it sits “still”. The speculation is that for each wave front encountered, there is a tiny time delay in the forward increment of motion of the object being accelerated. Because the rest clock, or stay at home twin, is not the one that is said to be in motion relative to the accelerated clock, the rest clock doesn’t have as many wave front encounters in the direction of motion, and therefore experiences less accumulated time delay than the moving twin experiences during its period of motion. Experiencing less time delay equates to the appearance of more rapid aging.
Since the time involved starts and ends simultaneously for the two clocks, the variance shows up as a difference in the amount of time recorded on the face of the clocks. The rate that time actually passes is impossible to determine because the definition of a second requires that the measurement be made at zero degrees K and without outside influences like gravity, for example. Your concept of absolute time is therefore theoretical, while my concept of the rate that clocks measure the passing of time is based on scientific observations of how clocks that are in relative motion to each other function.
We are detecting waves produced by high energy events like the in-swirling death spiral of two black holes. In GR they are often referred to as ripples in the fabric of spacetime. The issue is not settled in the minds of the all general science enthusiasts, but since there are detectible gravitational waves emitted by high energy events where two very massive objects accelerating relative to each other (are in relative motion), then my speculation is that logic supports the idea that any two objects in relative motion will emit gravitational wave energy, relative to observations made from the location the other object.
True. When objects are in orbit, they are said to be falling around each other. They would logically be “falling toward each other” based on their mutual gravitational attraction. However, because the speed of gravity is said to be the same as the speed of light, effectively they are falling toward where the other object was, not where it is. This means that in the period of time that the gravitational waves have been traveling between the two objects, each object has moved out of the way, lol. They fall to where the object was, but are still in each others gravitational grasp, and so they fall in orbit.
This makes perfect sense if you are defending the concept of absolute time. But since I am a never-absoluter , it is quite wrong sided. The different rate of functionality of objects in relative motion is not something that someone there with the objects can detect.
An observer positioned with either of two objects in relative motion, like a twin on the rocket ship, and the twin that stays home at rest, do not realize that there is a difference in their respective rates of functionality. That is the reason why there is surprise on the part of the twins that the traveling twin appears much younger. Neither of them detected any chance in functionality during the duration of the separation.
The truth in what you say about the universe being in complete sync is ironic. You say that the synchronization is due to the fact that there is a universal rate that time passes everywhere, and I say that the synchronization is that every location in space has an energy density that varies from the universal average level of energy density by some (impossible to measure) (vague) amount.
In conclusion, absolute time would correspond to the rate that all clocks would tick if they were all located in an environment where their local wave energy density was equal to the universal average level of gravitational wave energy density.
In reality though, every location in space has a varying level of energy density governed by the relative motion of all mass in the universe. Let me quote from a paper on Mach’s principle (or as some call it, Mach’s conjecture):“Mass there influences inertia here. ... Because every object in the universe exerts a gravitational pull on every other, each object will feel each other’s presence through their mutual attractions. So motion must ultimately depend on the distribution of matter, or its mass, not on the properties of space itself.”What Mach is referring to specifically is about the concept that there is no absolute space, but because there is no absolute space, it follows that there is no absolute time as well.
Reply #99Bogie’s reply to ATMD’s reply #96Quote from: ATMD on 06/12/2018 14:55:00Totally agree. In fact, I think that for any world view, the beginning of the universe required a miracle.How you feel about the “always existed” explanation of the existence of the universe, as a viable world view? It doesn't require "something from nothing", or the Supernatural "God did it". I don't think that world view has to invoke a miracle at all. It does require a grasp of an infinity, eternity. QuoteBtw Science is not a dogma, our world views change with new findings and discoveries.Yes, well said.
Totally agree. In fact, I think that for any world view, the beginning of the universe required a miracle.
Btw Science is not a dogma, our world views change with new findings and discoveries.
Yes, I have a Buddhist friend who says that the universe has always existed. I try to be open-minded about it. Eternity is extremely difficult to grasp, but I am trying
Modern cosmology seems to indicate that our universe had a beginning, but it could have been a part of an eternal cycle.
1) If you're counting the passing of time as being the amount measured by a clock, then you're going to have event-meshing failures.
2) If you have clocks slowed by anything, it is necessary for there to be an absolute time for it to be slowed relative to.
3) Your logic is correct up to a point (see below), but the amount of energy involved in this is tiny in normal cases - it barely registers, and I don't think it has any relation to the slowing of clocks.
4) The gravitational waves only carry away the energy lost by orbital decay. If you have two things orbiting each other and maintaining separation orbit by orbit, you have no energy being lost and there cannot be any gravitational waves coming off the system as that would require extra energy to come out of nothing.
5) There is no surprise at all if they understand the mechanism by which movement slows clocks (without slowing time). The problem there though is the maths of relativity which hides the absolute frame from all attempts to pin it down through measurement. With the gravity-twins-paradox experiment though we know which clock is running slower than the other throughout the experiment.
6) The reality is that we can calculate with high precision the effects of speed of movement and energy density on clocks, so there's no vagueness involved. Something coordinates the local slowing with extreme accuracy throughout the universe.
7) No - that would be slower than absolute time. Absolute time is totally unslowed. All clocks run slower than that (except for the universe's own hidden clock which does tick out absolute time everywhere, though in a tickless manner).
8 ) It's a dud argument if that's the conclusion - without absolute space, there's nothing to control the relative speeds between the content of that space, and nothing to transmit gravitational pull through either. Many people in physics are obsessed with denying the existence of logical necessities on the basis that they can't be seen directly (and yet at the same time, many of them [though not Einstein] are also obsessed with declaring the existence of logical impossibilities [gods] that also can't be seen, but that's another issue).