0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ripping off and paraphrasing lines from Casablanca is not worthy of you Bogie.(as well as stealing names from said movie).
My logic is, in order for there to be absolute time at any point in space, there cannot be any gravitational wave energy or light wave energy, or temperature in that portion of space, because the presence of those conditions preclude the speed of light reaching c.
Let me point to this slope again, because the decline in energy density relative to absolute time is very steep, meaning that before you get to zero density, you still have a significant amount of energy in space.
Quote Of more relevance could be the virtual particles "pinging into and out of existence" in any volume of space anywhere - if that produces a high energy density everywhere, that could be slowing all clocks everywhere to the point where they're only measuring a tiny amount of the actual time that's passed there, in which case there could be a strong impact on clock speeds even in the emptiest places in the universe…You are acknowledging an import point and a meaningful feature of the ISU model.
Of more relevance could be the virtual particles "pinging into and out of existence" in any volume of space anywhere - if that produces a high energy density everywhere, that could be slowing all clocks everywhere to the point where they're only measuring a tiny amount of the actual time that's passed there, in which case there could be a strong impact on clock speeds even in the emptiest places in the universe…
That is an open minded statement/position, and I maintain that the level of energy density will have an effect on the amount of aging difference between the twins. If there is more significant density throughout the universe due to virtual particles, then the accelerated twin will appear to be even younger in the end, than if the energy density was lower when virtual particles are ignored.
Quote(4) If the energy density in deep space is close to zero, a stationary clock there would almost tick at the same rate as absolute time.That is one opinion, if there was absolute time. However, I think you are underestimating the amount of wave energy in space, even in the deepest space, as I tried to show using the image of the rate of change in the speed of light as density declines.
(4) If the energy density in deep space is close to zero, a stationary clock there would almost tick at the same rate as absolute time.
First, let me ask if you are you going to be including any gravitational wave energy in the energy density of space. Unless you decide to acknowledge that all mass emits gravitational wave energy, which is consistent with Einstein’s prediction, you are going to be attributing a much lower level of energy density to space in the universe than if such emissions (and the speculated corresponding absorptions) are occurring.[/font]Second, the presence of mass that emits gravitational wave energy suggests that mass also absorbs roughly equal amounts of gravitational wave energy from the medium of space, to avoid entirely “evaporating” into the gravitational wave energy background. I’m ready to chat about that, so think about it. … and about (5)
My expected come back is that there is no absolute time in the ISU...
This has to be the case if we are to avoid event-meshing failures. Your idea of rejecting absolute time will break on the same point.
… as for the existance of the universe, i can only pass along the wisdom of a guru i consulted with after a long, arduous climb to the top of the mountains in Shangri La:"life is a chopped chicken liver sandwich". i have yet to understand his meaning, but if you do, please explain it to me.
Quote from: Thebox on 03/12/2018 16:20:08You can put the matter in your imagination of a void , the voids emptiness should allow you to see that there is no matter in the beginning . I get what you are saying, but remember, in the ISU model there was no beginning. I would appreciate it, Mr. Thebox, if you would use your imagination, not of a void as you suggest I do, but of a universe that has always existed, like I propose. How do you respond?
You can put the matter in your imagination of a void , the voids emptiness should allow you to see that there is no matter in the beginning .
Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 03/12/2018 22:32:28Quote from: Thebox on 03/12/2018 16:20:08You can put the matter in your imagination of a void , the voids emptiness should allow you to see that there is no matter in the beginning . I get what you are saying, but remember, in the ISU model there was no beginning. I would appreciate it, Mr. Thebox, if you would use your imagination, not of a void as you suggest I do, but of a universe that has always existed, like I propose. How do you respond?In my N-field model there is no beginning because the infinite spatial void always existed and always will exist , it is eternal and will remain eternal . It is also neither dark or light as the void space has no mechanism to alter in appearance or change in transparent properties . If we then add matter to the spatial void , we have then just added time to space although time can be regarded as the recording of the age of something relative to the 0t constant of the infinite spatial void . Additionally we do have a ''time'' dilation but in regards to the present information , it is misunderstood . It's actually a timing dilation relational to the aging process , field density and motion . Understanding the timing dilation is obviously important for GPS systems etc , to work accurately . Understanding the aging dilation is also important and an addition to previous information .
Happy birthday @Bogie_smiles May you enjoy many more thinking years (and the patience to ignore life’s fools)
Quote from: Thebox on 04/12/2018 03:56:43Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 03/12/2018 22:32:28Quote from: Thebox on 03/12/2018 16:20:08You can put the matter in your imagination of a void , the voids emptiness should allow you to see that there is no matter in the beginning . I get what you are saying, but remember, in the ISU model there was no beginning. I would appreciate it, Mr. Thebox, if you would use your imagination, not of a void as you suggest I do, but of a universe that has always existed, like I propose. How do you respond?In my N-field model there is no beginning because the infinite spatial void always existed and always will exist , it is eternal and will remain eternal . It is also neither dark or light as the void space has no mechanism to alter in appearance or change in transparent properties . If we then add matter to the spatial void , we have then just added time to space although time can be regarded as the recording of the age of something relative to the 0t constant of the infinite spatial void . Additionally we do have a ''time'' dilation but in regards to the present information , it is misunderstood . It's actually a timing dilation relational to the aging process , field density and motion . Understanding the timing dilation is obviously important for GPS systems etc , to work accurately . Understanding the aging dilation is also important and an addition to previous information . I see you have your thinking cap on today.From the top, we differ in our view on the universe in that in my ISU view, there never was an N-field, but there is a counterpart to it. Space itself has the characteristics of being infinite and eternal, and will remain eternal. The big catch is that your N-field, though eternal, had to become filled with matter and energy. In the ISU, matter and energy have always filled the infinite and eternal space. If I get it, in the N-field model, once the void contains matter, then it seems that time beings, and is measured by the relative motion between objects.What I don't get is the mechanism or cause of the existence of matter and energy in the N-field? I won't except the explanation that the matter and energy come form nothing because that violates the scientific method, so how did it get here?
The N-field is not eternal , the N-field(s) are what ''make'' visual universes. Energy does not come from no thing , it comes from nothingness. Nothingness can not be lessened in any way , it only has a singular option of greater than nothingness regarding change . Δ 0 = tt = ECall it a miracle if you like ........some thing from nothingness .
Quote from: David Cooper on 03/12/2018 23:13:25This has to be the case if we are to avoid event-meshing failures. Your idea of rejecting absolute time will break on the same point.The fact that you are an “absolute timer”, and I am a “no absolute timer” causes us to elaborate on physics from two different perspectives.
Do you think that the universe had a beginning, and/or do you have a preferred explanation for the existence of the universe?
Getting rid of time and just making everything eternally static
Quote from: David Cooper on 04/12/2018 21:19:45Getting rid of time and just making everything eternally static The underlying space of timing is the stationary reference frame , absolute 0 constant . Before the big bang there was apparently nothing , why not before the big bang there was a n-dimensional spatial volume of nothingness ?We need to consider the beginning logically , beyond finite is obviously infinite , additionally logically we can't lessen nothingness , we can only add to nothingness . As nothingness gives us nothing to work with , the concept starts to become a miracle , unless we can explain 0 point pressure .
The reason I go for absolute time is simple - if two different objects are allowed to go through different amounts of time between separating and reuniting and if there is no absolute time, one of them will have to get to the reunion point early and cannot meet the other there in the way that it is supposed to because the other one cannot possibly get there in time. For example, if we do the gravity-well equivalent of a twins paradox, we send one twin near to a black hole, then bring him back to his sister, at which point he appears to be much younger than her. I'll just put some numbers to this to make it easier to imagine. He sets out on his journey at the age of five and returns imagining himself to be ten, but by that time his sister is seventy five (and happy birthday tomorrow, by the way). Seventy years have passed for the girl while only five appear to have passed for the boy, but they meet up successfully, and that's only possible in any remotely-realistic model if the same amount of absolute time has passed for both of them. The five years measured by the ageing of the boy is an under-recording of the amount of time that has actually passed for him, recording only 1/14 of the minimum amount of absolute time that has actually gone by. If the girl too has been under-recording the amount of time that passed for her, then if she has only recorded half of it due to energy density being high everywhere, then 140 years of absolute time have passed and the boy has only recorded 1/28 of it. 4D models which replace real time with a "time" dimension try to get round this issue by eliminating time from the model while pretending it's still there, but they actually end up with an eternal block where time doesn't run at all, so there is no difference in the amount of time that's passed for the girl and boy because no time ever passes - there is only the illusion of time in such models. [In 4D models with an additional Newtonian-like time added to the mix (in addition to the "time" dimension, it's possible to grow a block universe in such a way that the event-meshing failures are corrected over time, but that's a contrived model and a half which no one should take seriously.]
All we can do is guess, but I see no great reason to prefer the idea of the universe and time pinging into existence out of nothing and then existing forever rather than having time exist eternally backwards and forwards and the universe being a mere chapter of a much larger work.
How do you judge something like that though when if time is infinite backwards, it could never have got to now as it would still be working it's way through the infinite amount of time that must have come before now? But if you want a finite start for it, you're still going to wonder what came before it, so you're no better off. Getting rid of time and just making everything eternally static has some appeal for that reason, but then all causality is rendered fake and the whole of it becomes dependent on infinite magic to account for how things are, which takes us as far away from science as it's possible to go. There's no good answer - there only appear to be bad ones, and that's highly unsatisfactory.
The underlying space of timing is the stationary reference frame , absolute 0 constant . Before the big bang there was apparently nothing , why not before the big bang there was a n-dimensional spatial volume of nothingness ?We need to consider the beginning logically , beyond finite is obviously infinite , additionally logically we can't lessen nothingness , we can only add to nothingness . As nothingness gives us nothing to work with , the concept starts to become a miracle , unless we can explain 0 point pressure .
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.