Post by: guest39538 on 15/11/2018 12:56:47
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 15/11/2018 14:48:23
https://scienceornot.net/2012/02/07/all-scientific-models-are-tentative/ (https://scienceornot.net/2012/02/07/all-scientific-models-are-tentative/)
Check out the included link to the Hallmarks of Science while you're there.
Post by: alancalverd on 15/11/2018 15:49:06
Scientific knowledge is the residue of explanatory and disprovable hypotheses that have not been disproved.
That's all there is to it.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2018 08:47:57
Science is a recursive process: observe, hypothesise, test.I consider that science is not really worth learning , a pointless exercise that will get you nowhere in life . As fact , it will probably completely ruin your life trying to succeed , even to point of where ''it'' drives you crazy .
Scientific knowledge is the residue of explanatory and disprovable hypotheses that have not been disproved.
That's all there is to it.
Let's face it , science defends their tentative dogma as if facts , uses people on forums and will always tell them they are wrong , quite a horrible bunch of people really who could not care less about ''you'' , you mean absolutely nothing to them apart from giving free information to them because they have no ability to think for themselves. At least I can deactivate all this crap and move on , thank GOD for deletion buttons.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/11/2018 13:26:50
I consider that science is not really worth learning , a pointless exercise that will get you nowhere in life . As fact , it will probably completely ruin your life trying to succeed , even to point of where ''it'' drives you crazy .That is unless, maybe a little like me, you are on the edge of crazy already, lol.
Quote
Let's face it , science defends their tentative dogma as if facts ,Look who got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.
uses people on forums and will always tell them they are wrong , quite a horrible bunch of people really who could not care less about ''you'' , you mean absolutely nothing to them apart from giving free information to them because they have no ability to think for themselves. At least I can deactivate all this crap and move on , thank GOD for deletion buttons.
Give me an example of some science "garbage", to start with.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2018 14:57:31
Give me an example of some science "garbage", to start with.
Alright ! Let's start with something really basic namely time . Science all around the globe will insist that time is the forth dimension , persistent in saying that time can speed up and that time can slow down . The truth and factual content is none of that is true and is no more than subjective mediocre thought .
The objective nature of time is that time is an arbitrary quantifiable measurement record that is directly proportional to recording a duration of existence . The merit and objectivity of this , is that time is only relative to matter and does not exist as an individual entity that has any physicality other than the subjective mind experience .
The scientific research I have done on time , concludes that we have in previous experiments observed a timing dilation and an aging dilation but specifically no time dilation . All observers experience the same amount of absolute time but not all observers age the same is the correct interpretation .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
The correct semantics being of importance to gain greater understanding of the subject .
In the twin paradox , both twins experience the exact same amount of absolute time but ones ages less biologically .
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/11/2018 15:22:41
Ok, yeah, but beside that … lol, just kidding.Give me an example of some science "garbage", to start with.
Alright ! Let's start with something really basic namely time .
Quote
Hold on there. Let’s break it down into smaller time pieces, like clocks:
Science all around the globe will insist that time is the forth dimension , persistent in saying that time can speed up and that time can slow down . The truth and factual content is none of that is true and is no more than subjective mediocre thought .
1) Clocks measure the rate that time passes in their local vicinity.
Take for example a clock on board an accelerating rocked ship will measure the passing of time at a slower rate than a clock back at the spaceport (let's call it at rest relative to the clock on the rocket ship). The same goes for the twins paradox; a twin accelerated on board that same rocket ship will age at a slower rate than the stay-at-home twin.
Do agree with this interpretation of science related to clocks and the different rate that they will measure the passing of time in different environments?
Quote
I think you get it. I would add that the rate that your clock, whether a time piece or a living aging being like our twin, measures the passing of time relative to the energy density of the local environment, and that would suggest that the energy density of an environment like on board an accelerating rocket ship is higher than the energy density at rest, back at the spaceport. The outcome is that two identical clocks can measure the rate that time is passing around them at different rates.
The objective nature of time is that time is an arbitrary quantifiable measurement record that is directly proportional to the aging process . The merit and objectivity of this , is that time is only relative to matter and does not exist as an individual entity that has any physicality other than the subjective mind experience .
What is wrong with that?
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2018 15:52:35
The outcome is that two identical clocks can measure the rate that time is passing around them at different rates.
That's not correct and not objective . We can measure the timing difference between two identical clocks that we have created too record arbitrary time . There's a huge difference in the factual semantics compared to subjective semantics and poor interpretation .
The absolute time the clocks are apart is equal which can be easily demonstrated using a thought experiment and the constant of light in a simultaneously , two way simulation .
diagram 1.jpg (14.83 kB . 574x277 - viewed 6758 times)Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2018 16:07:00
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/11/2018 18:41:09
The outcome is that two identical clocks can measure the rate that time is passing around them at different rates.
That's not correct and not objective . We can measure the timing difference between two identical clocks that we have created too record arbitrary time . There's a huge difference in the factual semantics compared to subjective semantics and poor interpretation .
The absolute time the clocks are apart is equal which can be easily demonstrated using a thought experiment and the constant of light in a simultaneously , two way simulation .
diagram 1.jpg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=75389.0;attach=28374) (14.83 kB . 574x277 - viewed 35 times)
Just to clarify the statement,
Quote from: bogie
“The outcome is that two identical clocks can measure the rate that time is passing around them at different rates”, … must be taken in the context that the two identical clocks are positioned in environments that have different energy density profiles. For example, a rocket that is accelerating has a different energy density profile than the rocket that remains back at the spaceport, and a clock very near a massive object (like a mountain top for example) will be in an environment that has a different energy density profile than an identical clock positioned far away from that same mountain top, whether you are using General Relativity, or the classical force of gravity modified to reflect the effect of relative motion that Einstein enlightened us on.
Let’s say that you are conducting your though experiment in deep space, uninfluenced by any nearby massive objects. Your diagram would then apply, and the distance that each clock travels in one elapsed second, as measured on the face of each clock, would be equal. If, as indicated by your diagram then, the distance between the two clocks at the start is assumed be equal to the distance that each clock will travel through a perfect vacuum in the length of time it takes for each clock to show one elapsed second, then they will pass each other during that one second journey, and each clock will end up in the exact position that the other clock started out; effectively they will simply change positions. Do I have that right? Have I interpreted correctly what you are intending to show in your diagram?
Assuming that is understood, I would like to point out that:
the speed of light in a perfect vacuum is “c”, but space as we know it is only near being a perfect vacuum, not a perfect vacuum, because the “medium” of space contains various things, and is said to have various characteristics that determine the velocity of light through the medium of space. Therefore, given two identical clocks following the motion that your diagram indicates, and showing that one single second has elapsed on each of them, there are circumstances that could change the outcome in such a way that the clocks would not exactly change positions, there would be some degree of error relative to their initial positions.
For my example, the presence of a massive object moving through the vicinity of space where your thought experiment is talking place would change the outcome, if the motion of that massive object was not identical relative to the motion of both moving clocks. In that case, the clocks would not exactly change positions. Instead, there would be a difference between the ending positions and the initial positions; each clock would not exactly have changed position because of the differing influence that the massive object would have on the respective rate of motion of the two clocks.
Here is why. In my example the presence of massive objects is part of the equation that determines the values of the local density of space surrounding each clock. In General Relativity for example, the presence of a massive object gets considered when the Einstein Field Equations are used, because the massive object affects the value of the tensors, and if the massive object had a trajectory that took it closer to one of your clocks than the other, the value of the respective tenors would change at a different rate as the thought experiment played out.
Of course, GR is not purportedly measuring a characteristic called “energy density” in the same sense that the term applies to the local affect of gravity; it is calculating the value of the tensors relative to each moving clock.
However, in the case where a massive object is present, what we generally mean by “gravity” and what is meant by the “curvature of spacetime” should have the same effect. There is no reason to believe that the outcomes will be different, if GR and Gravity are different ways of describing the same cause and effect.
In GR, if mass tells space how to curve, and curved space tells matter how to move, then when we are talking about the force of gravity, instead of the curvature of space time caused by the presence of mass, we would have to modify the classical equations for gravity to correspond to the EFEs. Science does not say that two identical clocks, traveling in opposite directions for an elapsed time of one exact second on their respective dials will travel the same exact distance in opposite directions. It says that given a perfect vacuum, that two identical clocks, traveling in opposite directions for an elapsed time of one exact second on their respective dials, in identical circumstances in regard to the surrounding presence of massive objects, will travel the same exact distance in opposite directions.
Additionally , to say there is a time dilation is disagreeing with velocity . Einstein contradicts himself in that in relative velocity neither observer knows who is moving . What this means is that if you move away from me at 0.5c , relatively I am moving away from you at 0.5 c . Light speed as we know is constant , if you travel at 0.5 c away from me and return in 1.s , we'll both experience the velocity second with no variation .
It isn’t a contradiction. What you say is true, and what Einstein says is true, but you are both talking about different ways of making measurements using the speed of light in a vacuum. When referring to Special Relativity, time dilation is a measure of the effect of objects following different geodesics between the same two points. The physical distance between those two points would differ from an “as the crow flies” distance. However, two objects in relative motion to each other follow different curved paths, and therefore travel different physical distances through spacetime based on the relative motion between two objects.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2018 22:04:24
It hardly matter , this forum lies just like every other forum. I am deleting my account never to return to science, they can kiss my ......I would not help them even if the earth was at stake. As far I am concerned the Earth can end I would happily smile about it . Think I got up out of the wrong side of my bed this morning , pffffff, that is nothing compared to this evening .
The outcome is that two identical clocks can measure the rate that time is passing around them at different rates.
That's not correct and not objective . We can measure the timing difference between two identical clocks that we have created too record arbitrary time . There's a huge difference in the factual semantics compared to subjective semantics and poor interpretation .
The absolute time the clocks are apart is equal which can be easily demonstrated using a thought experiment and the constant of light in a simultaneously , two way simulation .
diagram 1.jpg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=75389.0;attach=28374) (14.83 kB . 574x277 - viewed 35 times)
Just to clarify the statement,Quote from: bogie“The outcome is that two identical clocks can measure the rate that time is passing around them at different rates”, … must be taken in the context that the two identical clocks are positioned in environments that have different energy density profiles. For example, a rocket that is accelerating has a different energy density profile than the rocket that remains back at the spaceport, and a clock very near a massive object (like a mountain top for example) will be in an environment that has a different energy density profile than an identical clock positioned far away from that same mountain top, whether you are using General Relativity, or the classical force of gravity modified to reflect the effect of relative motion that Einstein enlightened us on.
Let’s say that you are conducting your though experiment in deep space, uninfluenced by any nearby massive objects. Your diagram would then apply, and the distance that each clock travels in one elapsed second, as measured on the face of each clock, would be equal. If, as indicated by your diagram then, the distance between the two clocks at the start is assumed be equal to the distance that each clock will travel through a perfect vacuum in the length of time it takes for each clock to show one elapsed second, then they will pass each other during that one second journey, and each clock will end up in the exact position that the other clock started out; effectively they will simply change positions. Do I have that right? Have I interpreted correctly what you are intending to show in your diagram?
Assuming that is understood, I would like to point out that:
the speed of light in a perfect vacuum is “c”, but space as we know it is only near being a perfect vacuum, not a perfect vacuum, because the “medium” of space contains various things, and is said to have various characteristics that determine the velocity of light through the medium of space. Therefore, given two identical clocks following the motion that your diagram indicates, and showing that one single second has elapsed on each of them, there are circumstances that could change the outcome in such a way that the clocks would not exactly change positions, there would be some degree of error relative to their initial positions.
For my example, the presence of a massive object moving through the vicinity of space where your thought experiment is talking place would change the outcome, if the motion of that massive object was not identical relative to the motion of both moving clocks. In that case, the clocks would not exactly change positions. Instead, there would be a difference between the ending positions and the initial positions; each clock would not exactly have changed position because of the differing influence that the massive object would have on the respective rate of motion of the two clocks.
Here is why. In my example the presence of massive objects is part of the equation that determines the values of the local density of space surrounding each clock. In General Relativity for example, the presence of a massive object gets considered when the Einstein Field Equations are used, because the massive object affects the value of the tensors, and if the massive object had a trajectory that took it closer to one of your clocks than the other, the value of the respective tenors would change at a different rate as the thought experiment played out.
Of course, GR is not purportedly measuring a characteristic called “energy density” in the same sense that the term applies to the local affect of gravity; it is calculating the value of the tensors relative to each moving clock.
However, in the case where a massive object is present, what we generally mean by “gravity” and what is meant by the “curvature of spacetime” should have the same effect. There is no reason to believe that the outcomes will be different, if GR and Gravity are different ways of describing the same cause and effect.
In GR, if mass tells space how to curve, and curved space tells matter how to move, then when we are talking about the force of gravity, instead of the curvature of space time caused by the presence of mass, we would have to modify the classical equations for gravity to correspond to the EFEs. Science does not say that two identical clocks, traveling in opposite directions for an elapsed time of one exact second on their respective dials will travel the same exact distance in opposite directions. It says that given a perfect vacuum, that two identical clocks, traveling in opposite directions for an elapsed time of one exact second on their respective dials, in identical circumstances in regard to the surrounding presence of massive objects, will travel the same exact distance in opposite directions.
Additionally , to say there is a time dilation is disagreeing with velocity . Einstein contradicts himself in that in relative velocity neither observer knows who is moving . What this means is that if you move away from me at 0.5c , relatively I am moving away from you at 0.5 c . Light speed as we know is constant , if you travel at 0.5 c away from me and return in 1.s , we'll both experience the velocity second with no variation .
It isn’t a contradiction. What you say is true, and what Einstein says is true, but you are both talking about different ways of making measurements using the speed of light in a vacuum. When referring to Special Relativity, time dilation is a measure of the effect of objects following different geodesics between the same two points. The physical distance between those two points would differ from an “as the crow flies” distance. However, two objects in relative motion to each other follow different curved paths, and therefore travel different physical distances through spacetime based on the relative motion between two objects.
Post by: David Cooper on 19/11/2018 00:00:14
It hardly matter , this forum lies just like every other forum. I am deleting my account never to return to science, they can kiss my ......I would not help them even if the earth was at stake.
Here much evidence of great sanity I see. Much learning done you have. No clothes the emperor has, and clothes-having-not being told, he likes not.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/11/2018 18:07:10
diagram 1.jpg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=75389.0;attach=28374) (14.83 kB . 574x277)
In GR, mass tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move. However, when we are talking about the alternative which recognizes an obvious existent force of gravity, instead of the mathematical equations defining the curvature of spacetime (caused by the presence of matter and other various forms of energy), we would be talking about an alternative to spacetime theory, and that alternative would be the presence of a gravitational wave energy density profile of space that affects the rate that light and gravitational wave energy traverse the local space.
That being said, the statement, "Science does not say", as your diagram depicts, "that two identical clocks, traveling in opposite directions for an elapsed time of one exact second on their respective dials will travel the same exact distance in opposite directions. It says that given a perfect vacuum, that two identical clocks, traveling in opposite directions for an elapsed time of one exact second on their respective dials, in identical circumstances in regard to the surrounding presence of massive objects and the influence of the presence of all forms of energy, will travel the same exact distance in opposite directions."
Mr. Thebox, you have participated in many interesting give-and-take conversations with me, and so I await your return. Presumably that is contingent upon when you have the Internet back, and when you get up on the right side of the bed, lol. In your absence, this discussion is open in chat.
Elsewhere, I am in discussion with my shy friend, whom we call the Man-on-the-street (Mots). I also await his response to the issue of science dogma and the energy density alternative to spacetime that is mentioned herein.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 24/11/2018 14:32:32
The link confirms that both acceleration and gravitational attraction (which is a form of acceleration) affect the rate that clocks measure the rate that time passes. In line with those confirmed effects, in the thought experiments that include the twins, where one goes on a rocket ship and experiences periods of acceleration while the other stays at home at rest relative to the traveling twin, the effect shows up as a difference in the amount of aging between the two twins. The accelerated twin ages slower relative to the "at rest" twin. That result is perfectly in line with the theory and the clock experiments that confirm the theory.Give me an example of some science "garbage", to start with.
Alright ! Let's start with something really basic namely time . Science all around the globe will insist that time is the forth dimension , persistent in saying that time can speed up and that time can slow down . The truth and factual content is none of that is true and is no more than subjective mediocre thought .
The objective nature of time is that time is an arbitrary quantifiable measurement record that is directly proportional to recording a duration of existence . The merit and objectivity of this , is that time is only relative to matter and does not exist as an individual entity that has any physicality other than the subjective mind experience .
The scientific research I have done on time , concludes that we have in previous experiments observed a timing dilation and an aging dilation but specifically no time dilation . All observers experience the same amount of absolute time but not all observers age the same is the correct interpretation .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment)
The correct semantics being of importance to gain greater understanding of the subject .
In the twin paradox , both twins experience the exact same amount of absolute time but ones ages less biologically .
Your reference to each twin experiencing the same of amount of "absolute time" introduces a concept that the experiments have already falsified; there is no absolute time. We define time as a measurement done by a clock. The closest you can get to absolute time is to say that time simply passes everywhere, and the identical atomic clocks show that the rate that time passes as measured by a clock is variable, relative to the amount of acceleration in one local environment relative to another.
There is acceleration experienced in an accelerating rocket ship, or by staying at rest relative to a massive object like the Earth where the acceleration takes the form of the gravitational attraction. The local measure of the gravitational attraction differs from point to point in space.
What is interesting about the concept of absolute time is the reason that there is no absolute time. The reason is that any two objects anywhere in the universe that are in relative motion to each other must be experiencing a difference in the gravitational acceleration that affects their local environment. That difference exists because of the different orientation the two objects have to the massive objects that are influencing them gravitationally. That difference can be described in terms of gravitational wave energy density, which says that the local gravitational wave energy density profile of space is different between any two given locations because the matter that represents the source of gravitational attraction on those locations is always changing at a different rate.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/11/2018 16:12:36
The link confirms that both acceleration and gravitational attraction (which is a form of acceleration) affect the rate that clocks measure the rate that time passes.That is not what the experiment confirms , it doesn't ''measure the rate that time passes''.
The experiment measures the rate that c passes .
9,192,631,770 Hz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium_standard
Post by: guest39538 on 24/11/2018 16:22:36
Post by: Ophiolite on 24/11/2018 17:19:09
I am deleting my account never to return to science, they can kiss my ......I would not help them even if the earth was at stakeHmm. Two posts since you posted the above statement.
Your return has quite ruined my celebration.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/11/2018 17:44:10
Well , I've had a stressful day , sorry to have ruined your fun . No real reason to be that bothered .I am deleting my account never to return to science, they can kiss my ......I would not help them even if the earth was at stakeHmm. Two posts since you posted the above statement.
Your return has quite ruined my celebration.
Post by: David Cooper on 24/11/2018 21:43:43
That result is perfectly in line with the theory and the clock experiments that confirm the theory.
They don't confirm the theory - they are merely compatible with it.
Quote
Your reference to each twin experiencing the same of amount of "absolute time" introduces a concept that the experiments have already falsified; there is no absolute time.
He means that they're exposed to the same amount of absolute time, and that is the case. They mis-experience it though because they think time is passing more slowly than it actually is. The experiments have not falsified absolute time, and the theories that deny absolute time are irrational.
Quote
We define time as a measurement done by a clock.
That's your mistake then. Clocks attempt to measure time, but they under-record it in most situations.
Quote
The closest you can get to absolute time is to say that time simply passes everywhere, and the identical atomic clocks show that the rate that time passes as measured by a clock is variable, relative to the amount of acceleration in one local environment relative to another.
The ticking rate of clocks varies depending on the speed of movement of a clock through space due to the increased cycle distances, and due to the speed of light being slowed in the vicinity of mass.
Quote
What is interesting about the concept of absolute time is the reason that there is no absolute time.
What is interesting about it is that there is absolute time and that people allow themselves to be blinded to that reality by utter bilge about irrelevant acceleration issues as if the slowing caused by movement is somehow the same as the slowing caused by gravity.
Quote
The reason is that any two objects anywhere in the universe that are in relative motion to each other must be experiencing a difference in the gravitational acceleration that affects their local environment. That difference exists because of the different orientation the two objects have to the massive objects that are influencing them gravitationally.
Nonsense - the gravitational acceleration on small objects in deep space is so close to zero that it's not worth considering. If you're at point A in space and you're stationary, the speed of light is passing you in all directions at c relative to you. If you then travel towards point B at 0.6c, the speed of light relative to you in one direction will necessarily be 1.6c and in the opposite direction it will be 0.4c. (This has to be the case, because if you try to keep it at c, you're going to have to change the speed of light relative to point A, which is something you aren't allowed to do.) If you return from point B to point A at 0.6c too, then the speed of light will be 0.4c relative to you in one direction and 1.6c in the other. That automatically slows your clock such that it only records 0.8 times as many ticks as a clock that stays at A throughout your journey. The moving clock under-records the amount of time that's passed for it because of the increased cycle times, but all the parts of the clock are moving at full speed. If we use light clocks, the light in those is moving at full speed, covering the same distance through space in a given length of absolute time regardless of whether the clock is stationary or moving. The waves and forces travelling about within the matter of the clock to maintain separation between particles also move the same distance through space in a given length of absolute time regardless of whether the clock is stationary or moving. The only thing that slows is the composite functionality, which includes the number of ticks that the clock produces, but there is no slowing of actual time for a moving clock. If you take a light clock and shake it, you can also change the amount of apparent time it records - by getting the frequency of shaking right you can either slow the clock down or speed it up, but all you're doing is making it mis-record the amount of time that's actually gone by. Moving a clock at a constant speed has the same effect. We have a world full of nincompoops who can't see the obvious nature of reality because they've had their minds messed with by people who brainwash them to believe that they become superior by buying into their crazy voodoo and worshipping a false god. they then spend the rest of their lives telling more rational people that there's no such thing as absolute time and informing them that they have to abandon the idea of it in favour of voodoo.
How do you brainwash someone to believe in that voodoo? That's the really big science question here. The idea that you accelerate from rest and yet remain at rest at the new speed with light still passing you at c relative to you in all directions is utterly bonkers, and yet they simply allow that bullscheidt to take over their minds in order to boost their status by becoming part of the elite. People are clearly really susceptible to mind viruses, and not just religious ones - anything that sells status for stupidity can have that power. Absolute time works fine, but the voodoo doesn't - it cheats by changing frame at the drop of a hat and thereby changing the asserted speed of light relative to the content of space. It involves having one's cake and eating it. There are various models which try to account for the action, but all the establishment ones break in one way or another, thereby forcing them to cheat to make their models "work". They invariably smuggle in a Newtonian time that isn't part of their specification (and which is even banned in the specification). Either that or they have no time in them at all, and merely pretend to have it. SR and GR are two of the most embarrassing ideas in the history of science, but so many people have tied their colours to them so firmly that they lack the courage to back down, so they just dig in and go on defending their colossal pile of mouldy old pants.
Here's the really important point though: The Box is more rational than them.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/11/2018 00:13:48
Quote from: wiki
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The caesium standard is a primary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_standard)frequency standard[/url] in which (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_transition)electronic transitions[/url] between the two (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfine_level)hyperfine[/url] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_state)ground states[/url] of (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium)caesium-133[/url] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom)atoms[/url] are used to control the output frequency. The first caesium clock was built by (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Essen)Louis Essen[/url] in 1955 at the (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Physical_Laboratory,_UK)National Physical Laboratory[/url] in the UK.[/font][1] and promoted worldwide by (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gernot_M._R._Winkler)Gernot M. R. Winkler[/url] of the (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNO)USNO[/url].
Caesium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock)atomic clocks[/url] are the most accurate time and frequency standards, and serve as the (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_standard)primary standard[/url] for the definition of the (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second)second[/url] in the (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units)International System of Units[/url] (SI) (the (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_system)metric system[/url]). By definition, radiation produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium (in the absence of external influences such as the Earth's magnetic field) has a frequency, [/font]ΔνCs, of exactly 9,192,631,770 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hertz)Hz[/url]. That value was chosen so that the caesium second equalled, to the limit of human measuring ability in 1960 when it was adopted, the existing standard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephemeris_second)ephemeris second[/url] based on the (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth)Earth[/url]'s orbit around the (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun)Sun[/url].[2] Because no other measurement involving time had been as precise, the effect of the change was less than the experimental uncertainty of all existing measurements.
External linksTechnical details[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caesium_standard&action=edit§ion=1)]
The official definition of the (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second)second[/url] given by the (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Bureau_of_Weights_and_Measures)BIPM[/url] at the 13th (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Conference_on_Weights_and_Measures)General Conference on Weights and Measures[/url] in 1967 is: ``The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.'' At its 1997 meeting the BIPM added to the previous definition the following specification: ``This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K.''[/font]
The meaning of the preceding definition is as follows. The caesium atom has a ground state electron state with (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_configuration)configuration[/url] [Xe] 6s[/font]1 and, consequently, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_symbol)atomic term symbol[/url] 2S1/2. This means that there is one unpaired electron and the total electron spin of the atom is 1/2. Moreover, the nucleus of caesium-133 has a nuclear spin equal to 7/2. The simultaneous presence of electron spin and nuclear spin leads, by a mechanism called (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfine_structure)hyperfine interaction[/url], to a (small) splitting of all energy levels into two sub-levels. One of the sub-levels corresponds to the electron and nuclear spin being parallel (i.e., pointing in the same direction), leading to a total spin F equal to F=7/2+1/2 =4; the other sub-level corresponds to anti-parallel electron and nuclear spin (i.e., pointing in opposite directions), leading to a total spin F=7/2-1/2=3. In the caesium atom it so happens that the sub-level lowest in energy is the one with F=3, while the F=4 sub-level lies energetically slightly above. When the atom is irradiated with electromagnetic radiation having an energy corresponding to the energetic difference between the two sub-levels the radiation is absorbed and the atom is excited, going from the F=3 sub-level to the F=4 one. After a small fraction of a second the atom will re-emit the radiation and return to its F=3 ground state. From the definition of the second it follows that the radiation in question has a frequency of exactly 9.19263177 GHz, corresponding to a (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum)wavelength[/url] of about 3.26 cm and therefore belonging to the (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave)microwave[/url] range.
Quote from: wiki Kelvin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaNote the stipulations that apply to the figure 9,192,631,770 Hz.. We are talking about a measurement taken at absolute zero (0 Kelvin), and in the absence of external influences such as the Earth's magnetic field. The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom, at absolute zero Kelvin, which does not exist anywhere, and without any outside influences like gravity and magnetic fields. In other words, the figure does not represent an actual measurement of the frequency, but a sterile conception of a theoretical frequency.
The Kelvin scale is an (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_scale)absolute[/url] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_temperature)thermodynamic temperature[/url] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_of_temperature)scale[/url] using as its null point (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero)absolute zero[/url], the temperature at which all (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gases)thermal motion[/url] ceases in the classical description of (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics)thermodynamics[/url]. The kelvin (symbol: K) is the (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_base_unit)base unit[/url] of (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature)temperature[/url] in the (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units)International System of Units[/url] (SI).[/font]
Until 2018, the kelvin was defined as the fraction 1⁄273.16 of the thermodynamic temperature of the (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_point#Triple_point_of_water)triple point of water[/url] (exactly 0.01 °C or 32.018 °F).[1] In other words, it is defined such that the (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_point)triple point[/url] of water is exactly 273.16 K.
On 16 November 2018, a (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redefinition_of_SI_base_units)new definition[/url] was adopted, in terms of a fixed value of the (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant)Boltzmann constant[/url]. For (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_metrology#Legal_metrology)legal metrology[/url] purposes, the new definition will officially come into force 20 May 2019[/font][2] (the 130th anniversary of the (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre_Convention)Metre Convention[/url]).
The Kelvin scale is named after the Belfast-born, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_University)Glasgow University[/url] engineer and physicist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thomson,_1st_Baron_Kelvin)William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin[/url] (1824–1907), who wrote of the need for an "absolute thermometric scale". Unlike the degree (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit)Fahrenheit[/url] and degree (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsius)Celsius[/url], the kelvin is not referred to or written as a (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_(temperature))degree[/url]. The kelvin is the primary unit of temperature measurement in the physical sciences, but is often used in conjunction with the degree Celsius, which has the same magnitude. The definition implies that absolute zero (0 K) is equivalent to −273.15 °C (−459.67 °F).[/font]
—————————
Given my explanation, one might wonder how a difference in the local gravitational wave energy density can affect that rate that clocks measure the passing of time?
The answer is that it is because clocks, and all objects of matter, are composed of particles. Particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments, and therefore can be referred to as wave-particles. Different levels of local gravitational wave energy density cause wave-particles to function at different rates, and the different rates that clocks function is directly related to the rate that the particles that make up the clocks are functioning. That difference in the rate that particles function and in the rate that clocks function is governed by the difference in the gravitational wave energy density of the environment where the clocks are located. Clocks located in high energy density environments like on mountain tops or in accelerating rock ships function at a slower rate will measure the passing of time at a slower rate.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/11/2018 00:24:18
Confirming and being compatible are close enough for me.
They don't confirm the theory - they are merely compatible with it.
Quote
We’ll have to get into that a little deeper, but I will give you this, time may or may not simple pass at the same rate everywhere, but the rate that clocks measure the passing of time varies based on their motion relative to massive objects, and two clocks will differ in the rate that they measure the passing of time, based on their relative proximity to the surrounding massive objects.
He means that they're exposed to the same amount of absolute time, and that is the case. They mis-experience it though because they think time is passing more slowly than it actually is. The experiments have not falsified absolute time, and the theories that deny absolute time are irrational.
Quote
Clocks don’t attempt to measure time. The either do or don’t. I am taking the perspective that clocks do measure time; by definition, they are a means of measuring the rate that time is passing, within the tolerances of the particular clock.
That's your mistake then. Clocks attempt to measure time, but they under-record it in most situations.
Quote
Cycle distances may need some clarification for me to understand the concept you are conveying, exactly.
The ticking rate of clocks varies depending on the speed of movement of a clock through space due to the increased cycle distances, and due to the speed of light being slowed in the vicinity of mass.
Quote
If you are making a distinction between the acceleration of a rocket, and the acceleration of gravity, in terms of the affect they have on the rate that clocks will measure time under the two different circumstances, let's consider it is open for discussion.
What is interesting about it is that there is absolute time and that people allow themselves to be blinded to that reality by utter bilge about irrelevant acceleration issues as if the slowing caused by movement is somehow the same as the slowing caused by gravity.
Quote
You are right that little differences may not be meaningful at the macro scale of clocks measuring time. However, I don’t think you are saying that “close to zero” is that same as “zero”. It depends on the circumstances as to if a non-zero effect is meaningful, and I maintain that at the quantum level, even the tiniest relative gravitational acceleration can be meaningful.
Nonsense - the gravitational acceleration on small objects in deep space is so close to zero that it's not worth considering.
Quote
If you're at point A in space and you're stationary, the speed of light is passing you in all directions at c relative to you. If you then travel towards point B at 0.6c, the speed of light relative to you in one direction will necessarily be 1.6c and in the opposite direction it will be 0.4c. (This has to be the case, because if you try to keep it at c, you're going to have to change the speed of light relative to point A, which is something you aren't allowed to do.) If you return from point B to point A at 0.6c too, then the speed of light will be 0.4c relative to you in one direction and 1.6c in the other. That automatically slows your clock such that it only records 0.8 times as many ticks as a clock that stays at A throughout your journey. The moving clock under-records the amount of time that's passed for it because of the increased cycle times, but all the parts of the clock are moving at full speed. If we use light clocks, the light in those is moving at full speed, covering the same distance through space in a given length of absolute time regardless of whether the clock is stationary or moving. The waves and forces travelling about within the matter of the clock to maintain separation between particles also move the same distance through space in a given length of absolute time regardless of whether the clock is stationary or moving. The only thing that slows is the composite functionality, which includes the number of ticks that the clock produces, but there is no slowing of actual time for a moving clock. If you take a light clock and shake it, you can also change the amount of apparent time it records - by getting the frequency of shaking right you can either slow the clock down or speed it up, but all you're doing is making it mis-record the amount of time that's actually gone by. Moving a clock at a constant speed has the same effect. We have a world full of nincompoops who can't see the obvious nature of reality because they've had their minds messed with by people who brainwash them to believe that they become superior by buying into their crazy voodoo and worshipping a false god. they then spend the rest of their lives telling more rational people that there's no such thing as absolute time and informing them that they have to abandon the idea of it in favour of voodoo.
How do you brainwash someone to believe in that voodoo? That's the really big science question here. The idea that you accelerate from rest and yet remain at rest at the new speed with light still passing you at c relative to you in all directions is utterly bonkers, and yet they simply allow that bullscheidt to take over their minds in order to boost their status by becoming part of the elite. People are clearly really susceptible to mind viruses, and not just religious ones - anything that sells status for stupidity can have that power. Absolute time works fine, but the voodoo doesn't - it cheats by changing frame at the drop of a hat and thereby changing the asserted speed of light relative to the content of space. It involves having one's cake and eating it. There are various models which try to account for the action, but all the establishment ones break in one way or another, thereby forcing them to cheat to make their models "work". They invariably smuggle in a Newtonian time that isn't part of their specification (and which is even banned in the specification). Either that or they have no time in them at all, and merely pretend to have it. SR and GR are two of the most embarrassing ideas in the history of science, but so many people have tied their colours to them so firmly that they lack the courage to back down, so they just dig in and go on defending their colossal pile of mouldy old pants.
Here's the really important point though: The Box is more rational than them.
Tell me what you really think about we who envision a universe without absolute time, :)
There is a lot in those last sections of your post that are worth discussion, so let’s see if we can get to them in due course.
Post by: David Cooper on 25/11/2018 00:51:23
Clocks don’t attempt to measure time. The either do or don’t. I am taking the perspective that clocks do measure time; by definition, they are a means of measuring the rate that time is passing, within the tolerances of the particular clock.
And I'm saying that that definition is fundamentally wrong. Imagine that you're standing ten metres away from a friend, kicking a ball to and fro with the ball always moving at the same speed. You have now become a clock that ticks just like a light clock. If you both start walking to the side, the faster you go, the more distance the ball has to travel to complete each tick (with the cycle distance increasing from 20m to greater lengths), and if it's going at the same speed as before, that clock will necessarily tick more slowly. The clock is running slow, but time has not slowed down. We can do the same thing with a sound clock, using a pulse of sound moving to and fro. The faster you move the sound clock through the air, the slower it ticks, but time has not slowed down for this clock either - it's simply under-recording the amount of time that has gone by in the same way as the football clock. It's the same with a light clock, and indeed any other kind of clock, but there's one key difference with a light clock, and that's that there cannot exist any clock which can move along with the light clock which won't also be slowed down by its movement through space in the same way, so the functionality of everything moving with that light clock has its functionality slowed to match. Time is not slowed though - it goes on operating at the same rate as normal. The only thing slowing down the clock's functionality is the increase in cycle distances which make it tick slow, just like with the sound clock and the football clock. Why would we allow ourselves to be fooled into thinking that time slows down for a light clock which is behaving just like a sound clock and a football clock?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/11/2018 01:11:37
Note that I have been talking about the different rate that two identical clocks measure the passing of time in different acceleration conditions. I think if you apply that perspective to each of the examples you have given, you will see that the examples you have given ignore that critical factor. To make your examples corresponded to the premise I have presented, your two identical clocks will be measuring the rate of the passing of time on their faces in two different environments where their respective rates of motion differ relative to a rest position.
And I'm saying that that definition is fundamentally wrong. Imagine that you're standing ten metres away from a friend, kicking a ball to and fro with the ball always moving at the same speed. You have now become a clock that ticks just like a light clock. If you both start walking to the side, the faster you go, the more distance the ball has to travel to complete each tick (with the cycle distance increasing from 20m to greater lengths), and if it's going at the same speed as before, that clock will necessarily tick more slowly. The clock is running slow, but time has not slowed down. We can do the same thing with a sound clock, using a pulse of sound moving to and fro. The faster you move the sound clock through the air, the slower it ticks, but time has not slowed down for this clock either - it's simply under-recording the amount of time that has gone by in the same way as the football clock. It's the same with a light clock, and indeed any other kind of clock,...
Quote
... but there's one key difference with a light clock, and that's that there cannot exist any clock which can move along with the light clock which won't also be slowed down by its movement through space in the same way, so the functionality of everything moving with that light clock has its functionality slowed to match. Time is not slowed though - it goes on operating at the same rate as normal. The only thing slowing down the clock's functionality is the increase in cycle distances which make it tick slow, just like with the sound clock and the football clock. Why would we allow ourselves to be fooled into thinking that time slows down for a light clock which is behaving just like a sound clock and a football clock?Please note that I have not said that time slows down. I have said that the rate that two identical clocks measure the passing of time differs when they are in relative motion to each other. I also include the twin's human bodies as clocks. When one twin is accelerated relative to one at rest, the accelerated twin ages slower, just like the accelerated clock measures a different rate of time passing, as confirmed by the experiments with atomic clocks.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/11/2018 12:24:53
Note that I have been talking about the different rate that two identical clocks measure the passing of time
That's the problem ! The clocks aren't measuring the passing of time . You are measuring mechanical movement that is equivalent to a duration you have aged clock watching . This equivalence principle we name time , time being arbitrary without physicality . Aging has a rate and physicality .
An observer , observing both clocks that the frequency is a variance is not affected by the frequency of the clocks. If the clock in transit slowed down to a stop, the clock does not cease to exist and aging does not stop exterior of the clock .
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/11/2018 14:05:52
By definition, that is what a clock does. The clock also ages as time passes, just like the twins age.Note that I have been talking about the different rate that two identical clocks measure the passing of time
That's the problem ! The clocks aren't measuring the passing of time . You are measuring mechanical movement that is equivalent to a duration you have aged clock watching . This equivalence principle we name time , time being arbitrary without physicality . Aging has a rate and physicality .
An observer , observing both clocks that the frequency is a variance is not affected by the frequency of the clocks. If the clock in transit slowed down to a stop, the clock does not cease to exist and aging does not stop exterior of the clock .
An observer, observing both clocks will also age as time passes, That is in line with what we observe, and that is the effect that we attribute to "time passing". Your reference to the equivalence principle isn't helping me understand. Energy, mass, the speed of light, are all connected in the way the universe works, but the speed of light, more importantly to my way of thinking is also the speed of gravity.
There are a few points for discussion purposes that are pertinent to this topic:
1) Time simply passes everywhere, and in the absence of matter and gravity, time would logically be passing everywhere at the same undetectable rate, which could be absolutely the same everywhere. Thus, though the rate would be undetectable, that concept could be referred to as absolute time.
2) However, when the real universe is considered, which is filled with matter and energy everywhere, not only is there no detectable absolute rate that time passes, but the measurable rate of the passing of time using identical clocks would show that the measurement of the rate that time passes would be different everywhere, according to the clocks, because of the relative acceleration between all objects in motion in space.
3) It is the nature of the passing of time that its rate of passing is measurable using clocks; this is what clocks do by definition.
4) Because there are differences in the rate that identical clocks would measure the passing of time based on their relative motion to each other (the effect of relative acceleration within the gravitational wave energy density profile of space), time would be measured by identical clocks to be passing at different rates, depending on the individual wave energy conditions relative acceleration) at every point in the universe.
5) Light is the gravitational wave energy emission of the photon wave particle, and c is the speed of light at zero degrees Kelvin of both light waves and gravity waves in an environment that is not affected by gravity or magnetism, or any outside influences (a theoretical value).
6) All particles are composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments (quanta), making them wave-particles with mass.
7) Wave-particles all emit and absorb gravitational wave energy, and gravitational wave energy fills all space, and is coming and going, to and from all directions, at all points in space, at the local speed of light and gravity.
8 ) On that basis, photons are unique wave-particles, with mass equal the energy of the quantum increments that they are composed of, that emit and absorb gravitational wave energy.
9) Light is the gravitational wave energy emission of the photon wave-particles, and photons are emitted by electrons at the speed of light and gravity, as the electrons move from one excited state to a lower state or to the ground state.
10) Light (gravity waves emitted by photons) is absorbed by electrons as they move from the ground state to the excited state, or from one excited state to a higher excited state.
That is the way I see it.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/11/2018 14:09:19
By definition, that is what a clock does. The clock also ages as time passes, just like the twins age.
Good day to you , time only exists as a word , a word cannot pass or do anything other than the fantasy content added by the practitioner .
Fact sorry !
p.s We don't need time for something to age .
i..e Stop the clock , the Universe does not end and the clock will continue to age .
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/11/2018 14:11:31
Post by: guest39538 on 25/11/2018 14:13:25
No problem. Sometimes the way individuals view and understand the universe around them is different.
It's not my view though , it is objective and I'm not in anyway biased to this view , it is an axiom and exists independent of my subjective thinking .
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/11/2018 14:29:00
Axioms are necessary "givens" from which we draw insights, hypotheses, speculations, lol.
It's not my view though , it is objective and I'm not in anyway biased to this view , it is an axiom and exists independent of my subjective thinking .
Theorists use axioms to say, "Ok, nature works in strange ways, and so for my theory to be correct, nature must be axiomatic in this certain way".
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/11/2018 14:47:11
Stop the clock , the Universe does not end and the clock will continue to age .How will you be able to tell that the clock is aging?
Post by: guest39538 on 25/11/2018 14:58:07
Axioms are necessary "givens" from which we draw insights, hypotheses, speculations, lol.
It's not my view though , it is objective and I'm not in anyway biased to this view , it is an axiom and exists independent of my subjective thinking .
Theorists use axioms to say, "Ok, nature works in strange ways, and so for my theory to be correct, nature must be axiomatic in this certain way".
Axioms are something that are self evidently true , observable or logical application of the mind .
Time is not a difficult subject to reverse engineer back to the fundamental beginning of measurement to observe what we did to record time using primitive measurement devices such as sun dials or planet /Sun cycles .
We have never measured time , we record equivalents to record our own measure of existence . I.e age
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/11/2018 15:11:26
Axioms are something that are self evidently true , observable or logical application of the mind .It is all in the meaning of "is", lol.
Time is not a difficult subject to reverse engineer back to the fundamental beginning of measurement to observe what we did to record time using primitive measurement devices such as sun dials or planet /Sun cycles .
We have never measured time , we record equivalents to record our own measure of existence . I.e age
Science is tentative, and the current consensus is established by the professionals that work in the industry. We mere layman are free to say what we want, and use our own brand of logic. But we shouldn't try to talk with one another, lol (just kidding).
Post by: guest39538 on 25/11/2018 15:15:46
Science is full of beans , I will take on science 24 / 7 because I know I'm right and they're wrong .Axioms are something that are self evidently true , observable or logical application of the mind .It is all in the meaning of "is", lol.
Time is not a difficult subject to reverse engineer back to the fundamental beginning of measurement to observe what we did to record time using primitive measurement devices such as sun dials or planet /Sun cycles .
We have never measured time , we record equivalents to record our own measure of existence . I.e age
Science is tentative, and the current consensus is established by the professionals that work in the industry. We mere layman are free to say what we want, and use our own brand of logic. But we shouldn't try to talk with one another, lol (just kidding).
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/11/2018 15:17:57
So did you really sell half your fishing gear? I hope you still have enough to do the job.
Science is full of beans , I will take on science 24 / 7 because I know I'm right and they're wrong .
Post by: guest39538 on 25/11/2018 15:32:12
So did you really sell half your fishing gear? I hope you still have enough to do the job.
Science is full of beans , I will take on science 24 / 7 because I know I'm right and they're wrong .
I sold all my fishing gear , I had people to support . I'm still supporting people , still trying to succeed and will not give up until I succeed . I saved my homeless friend , he is much better in himself .
P.s Was homeless.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/11/2018 15:42:14
Post by: guest39538 on 25/11/2018 15:45:11
You are a good father and a good man. Your day will come again.I'm also a good scientist , it is rather shameful I'm ignored . I am not the perfect father , I spend too much time trying to succeed . It is my race against my aging to succeed for my children that is important to me .
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/11/2018 15:51:40
Post by: guest39538 on 25/11/2018 15:57:55
Sorry I left off "good scientist". You have some work to do to convince me of that, lol.
Good is subjective , there is doing bad science that is good science and the opposite can be said . Experiments and a written report of the experiment is elementary . I don't try often , there seems little purpose with no audience , whom am I trying to impress ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/11/2018 16:59:38
I'm also a good scientistGot any evidence?
Post by: guest39538 on 25/11/2018 17:10:18
I'm also a good scientistGot any evidence?
Of course , I've advanced science and I know very well ''you'' are mostly ''stumped'' .
I'm an ''it'' , an anomaly , thinking ''smarts''.
NGI reality , where most people in science are AI .
Post by: jimbobghost on 25/11/2018 17:13:36
ask him "why?" :)
Post by: guest39538 on 25/11/2018 17:15:37
Why ? Shrugs shoulders !I'm also a good scientistGot any evidence?
Post by: Kryptid on 25/11/2018 17:41:24
Hmm. Two posts since you posted the above statement.
Your return has quite ruined my celebration.
Every time he says he's going to leave he never does. By this point it seems like an attention-gathering stunt.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/11/2018 17:47:40
Yes ! of course it is an attention grabbing stunt because I will not give up until science takes me seriously . Treating me compared to some mediocre thinker is just mediocre thinking , I have ''destroyed'' some of Einstein's work and I know it !Hmm. Two posts since you posted the above statement.
Your return has quite ruined my celebration.
Every time he says he's going to leave he never does. By this point it seems like an attention-gathering stunt.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/11/2018 18:06:37
I have ''destroyed'' some of Einstein's workWell, you certainly have not explained here how you have done so.
I will not give up until science takes me seriouslyWhy would science take you seriously? You have yet to show any real understanding of science.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/11/2018 18:07:29
Because, without it, nobody will take you seriously.Why ? Shrugs shoulders !I'm also a good scientistGot any evidence?
Post by: guest39538 on 25/11/2018 18:08:49
A scientific study and research project, an analysis of Neurological process relative to everyday activities of human interactions with the Universe and each other .
Introduction .
Everyday in our lives we experience Neurological activity and the processing of information in our brains , these processes allowing us to be self aware of ourselves and our surrounding environment . Daily information changing our memories of prior events , yesterday and today never being identical days .
Does that look like I do not know what I'm doing ?
Post by: guest39538 on 25/11/2018 18:20:52
I have just provided evidence of my science in the neurological post , I have presented lots of evidence on forums of my abilities in most science topics . It is time you Stop it ! with your little games and denial of my science ability .Because, without it, nobody will take you seriously.Why ? Shrugs shoulders !I'm also a good scientistGot any evidence?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/11/2018 18:25:53
Does that look like I do not know what I'm doing ?It looks like you are stating the obvious, and pretending that it is science by putting long words in it from time to time.
A bit like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science
Post by: guest39538 on 25/11/2018 18:35:08
Neurological process stimulation can be attributed to five main things, namely our own five senses of taste , sight , touch , smell and sound . Senses being the provider of experience or new experiences in the brains Neurological network , forming a Neurological clone image of the experienced as accessible memory information .Does that look like I do not know what I'm doing ?It looks like you are stating the obvious, and pretending that it is science by putting long words in it from time to time.
A bit like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science
Yes you're correct ! I have no idea what I'm doing . :P
Post by: jimbobghost on 25/11/2018 18:39:17
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/11/2018 19:15:54
you tell him!Let's use this as a chance to learn a little about caesium:
Post by: David Cooper on 25/11/2018 21:26:52
Note that I have been talking about the different rate that two identical clocks measure the passing of time in different acceleration conditions. I think if you apply that perspective to each of the examples you have given, you will see that the examples you have given ignore that critical factor. To make your examples corresponded to the premise I have presented, your two identical clocks will be measuring the rate of the passing of time on their faces in two different environments where their respective rates of motion differ relative to a rest position.
I've been talking about a light clock in deep space which when at rest ticks more quickly than when it's moving. It's easy enough to have two identical light clocks at the same location as one moves past the other (which is at rest). One of them is ticking more slowly because its movement increases the cycle distance for the light to cover between ticks. How am I ignoring any critical factor there?
Quote
Please note that I have not said that time slows down. I have said that the rate that two identical clocks measure the passing of time differs when they are in relative motion to each other. I also include the twin's human bodies as clocks. When one twin is accelerated relative to one at rest, the accelerated twin ages slower, just like the accelerated clock measures a different rate of time passing, as confirmed by the experiments with atomic clocks.
Start with my two identical light clocks at rest. Move one of them away from the other (i.e. accelerate it and then have it move away at a constant speed), then move it back again, bringing it to a halt next to the one that never moved. The one that moved has recorded less time, but the moving part in the moving clock, the light pulse, covered exactly the same distance through space as the moving part in the stationary clock. That component never ran slow, but the clock ticked fewer times, just like the ball in the football clock.
Maybe you should think about this. Suppose we have an amount of radiation gradually damaging our clocks. The light clocks have no mechanical moving parts and don't wear, but they are gradually worn away by radiation. The clock that moves records half as much time while it's travelling as the stationary clock, but it's exposed to the same amount of radiation during that time. Some of the radiation is also intensified by the higher impact speed in one direction, though the impact speed in the opposite direction is reduced, so the wear may be equal. Both clocks thus age at the same rate, but the moving clock records that ageing happening in half as long a time as the stationary clock, so if it's to imagine that only half as much time has passed for it, it has aged twice as much in a given length of time. That's the opposite of the amount of ageing it is supposed to have experienced.
Let's do it again without the radiation, but this time let's use light clocks that decay. Now we have a stationary clock that decays much more quickly than the moving clock, so when they're reunited, the one that travelled is in much better condition than the other. That's ageing too, but this time it agrees with the idea that travelling clocks age less. What's the difference between these two types of ageing? In the first case (with the radiation), moving the clock doesn't reduce the amount of radiation that the clock's exposed to, so that component of ageing is unslowed. In the second case (with decaying clocks), the movement of the moving clock slows down the functionality of the clock, and this slows down the mechanism driving the decay. We could make another kind of light clock though where the light is sent in zig-zags between two long mirrors, so instead of moving the clock, we just have the light follow the same path through space as it would with a moving clock while the mirrors of the clock stay still. The clock ticks slow because of the lengthened cycles for the light, but the material of the clock decays at the same rate as a clock at rest.
What is ageing? It could be defined as the rate of damage/decay. Alternatively, it could be defined as the amount of time that actually passed for the clock. A clock made of really stable materials might not decay at all, and if there's no radiation, it may not be damaged at all, so it could tick a quintillion times while an identical clock that's moving ticks once, but neither of them ages in the decay or damage sense of the word. Both have been exposed to the same amount of absolute time, but one has severely under-recorded that time while the other has not. Einstein says that the travelling clock has not under-recorded time - the amount of time which has passed for it is the amount that it has counted. Introduce the radiation though, and that clock wears out at least as quickly as the stationary clock.
What kind of bonkers game is Einstein playing? Well, originally he played a game in which contradictions had to be tolerated. If clock A was stationary, then light was passing it at c relative to it in all directions. If clock B was moving past clock A, clearly the light had to be passing clock B at speeds other than c relative to it in some directions. However, he also said that clock B could be considered to be at rest too in a different frame, and that meant that light was passing it at c relative to it in all directions. Have that happen while it's passing clock A (or rather, when it's being passed by clock A), and clearly light must be passing clock A at speeds other than c in some directions. He wanted both of these to be true, but he can't have it - it goes against logic (and mathematics). Minkowski tried to fix that for him by producing a "time dimension", and this gave space a 4D structure. With that structure, all the paths for light are reduced to zero length and zero time, so the speed of light becomes infinite or zero (depending on which way you look at it), though this is denied and is brushed under the carpet to hide it. They then played a dishonest game in which they asserted that the speed of light was still c on the basis that that's what you measure it as whenever you try to measure it, but the maths of their 4D model tells us that is actual speed must be infinite (or zero). Once you've turned the speed of light into infinite (or zero), you lose all variation in the relative speeds, hiding them in that infinity (or the complete elimination of the speed of light if it's zero). What this trick doesn't do though is account for how light travels from location X to location Y and back at infinite speed and yet take a longer time to cover the distance than zero time - the mechanism falls apart at that point. The alternative approach where time doesn't run at all doesn't suffer from that problem because the light no longer has to go anywhere - it's already there in an eternal block where the entire future is already in existence. In that model though, causality is rendered fake. That's the reality of it - his models are all broken and disproved, but the establishment goes on clinging to them like religious people to fake gods, but hardly anyone is intelligent enough to see the full picture, so this farce just goes on and on. It doesn't matter how much you break it down into small chunks for them so that you can drag them through the argument properly and show them where the models fail, they can't keep the incompatible models in separate compartments, but keep dragging bits of different ones together and asserting the the resulting mess somehow works, but it doesn't. Every single model (simulation) they've made of SR and GR cheats by introducing features that are banned in the official models, but they have to do this to make them work because the simulations are disfunctional otherwise. I've repeatedly asked people to point to a simulation of SR or GR that doesn't break the rules of SR or GR, but no one has been able to do so, and that's no surprise to me because the task of making an impossible model function correctly is impossible.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/11/2018 21:49:53
In the mean time, here are some of my favorite waves:
http://www.south-haven.com/police/live_south_beach_camera.php (http://www.south-haven.com/police/live_south_beach_camera.php)
Post by: guest39538 on 25/11/2018 22:10:01
Start with my two identical light clocks at rest. Move one of them away from the other (i.e. accelerate it and then have it move away at a constant speed), then move it back again, bringing it to a halt next to the one that never moved. The one that moved has recorded less time, but the moving part in the moving clock, the light pulse, covered exactly the same distance through space as the moving part in the stationary clock. That component never ran slow, but the clock ticked fewer times, just like the ball in the football clock.
The reference frame externally of the clocks has 0 measurement !
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/11/2018 12:17:19
I've been talking about a light clock in deep space which when at rest ticks more slowly than when it's moving.
Let’s start with that fact about your light clock at rest in deep space. You say it ticks more slowly when it is at rest. Can you put that statement in terms of the rate of aging? In my way of thinking, the rest clock is synonymous with the stay-at-home twin. If so, the rest clock, like the stay-at-home twin, ages faster and appears older after the twins are reunited. When you say the light clock at rest ticks more slowly, do you mean that the rate that the resting light clock measures the passing of time on its “dial” is slower? Wouldn’t that mean that it would appear to age slower? But isn’t it supposed to be that the accelerating twin ages slower.
Quote
It’s easy enough to have two identical light clocks at the same location as one moves past the other (which is at rest). One of them is ticking more slowly because its movement increases the cycle distance for the light to cover between ticks. How am I ignoring any critical factor there?I would interpret the “because” statement, where you say one clock is ticking more slowly “because its movement increases the cycle distance for the light to cover between ticks”, to mean that the clock that is running slower is the moving clock, while in the first paragraph you said, it ticks more slowly when it is at rest, or to be exact, you said, “I've been talking about a light clock in deep space which when at rest ticks more slowly than when it's moving.”
Those two statement seem inconsistent to me. Are they supposed to be the other way around, i.e., the rest clock ticks faster, and the moving clock ticks slower? That would make more sense to me.
If you have stated it correctly, and I am not on the same page, then I don’t understand the concept of a light clock, so tell me exactly how they work.
Once I get on the same page with you in regard to the light clock ticking slower when at rest, instead of faster at rest, then we can pick up on the rest of your post from there.
Post by: David Cooper on 27/11/2018 21:39:41
I've been talking about a light clock in deep space which when at rest ticks more slowly than when it's moving.
Let’s start with that fact about your light clock at rest in deep space. You say it ticks more slowly when it is at rest.
Sorry - that bit was meant to say "more quickly". Writing fast leads to occasional inversions.
Quote
Those two statement seem inconsistent to me. Are they supposed to be the other way around, i.e., the rest clock ticks faster, and the moving clock ticks slower? That would make more sense to me.
Correct diagnosis. I'll edit a correction into the relevant post. Apologies again - I don't know why reading through it after posting didn't pick it up either.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/11/2018 01:08:30
I see now, sorry, I was still back at kicking the ball between clocks, lol.
I've been talking about a light clock in deep space which when at rest ticks more quickly than when it's moving. It's easy enough to have two identical light clocks at the same location as one moves past the other (which is at rest). One of them is ticking more slowly because its movement increases the cycle distance for the light to cover between ticks. How am I ignoring any critical factor there?
I’ll repeat: “Please note that I have not said that time slows down. I have said that the rate that two identical clocks measure the passing of time differs when they are in relative motion to each other. I also include the twin's human bodies as clocks. When one twin is accelerated relative to one at rest, the accelerated twin ages slower, just like the accelerated clock measures a different rate of time passing, as confirmed by the experiments with atomic clocks.”
Quote
Start with my two identical light clocks at rest. Move one of them away from the other (i.e. accelerate it and then have it move away at a constant speed), then move it back again, bringing it to a halt next to the one that never moved. The one that moved has recorded less time,Agreed.
Quote
… but the moving part in the moving clock, the light pulse, covered exactly the same distance through space as the moving part in the stationary clock. That component never ran slow, but the clock ticked fewer times, just like the ball in the football clock.That is subject to different opinions, which we should talk through before we go on.
To start that talk, is this the right link to use to describe the light clocks that you use? https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_clock (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_clock)
If so, then from that Wiki:
“We also know that the speed of light, c, is constant. No matter who measures it, it turns out to be the same speed. So we can use that fact to get another way of calculating how long it takes for the flash of light to go from the base to the top of the pole and back again…”
But wait; c is a constant at 0 degrees Kelvin in an environment that is not influenced by gravity or magnetic fields or any outside influences like the relative motion of massive objects. We certainly don’t have any such perfect vacuums or locations uninfluenced by the presence of massive objects in relative motion to each other when we discuss twins and rocket ships and acceleration through the medium of space. I equate those events to real situations of relative motion through the real medium of space that is filled with light and gravity waves coming and going in all directions, at all points.
The velocity of the light and gravity waves is variable under real conditions, depending on the local gravitational wave energy density of the local space (akin to the curvature of spacetime in GR). Does that statement leave you cold, or do you get where I am coming from when I say:
Please note that I have not said that time slows down. I have said that the rate that two identical clocks measure the passing of time differs when they are in relative motion to each other. I also include the twin's human bodies as clocks. When one twin is accelerated relative to one at rest, the accelerated twin ages slower, just like the accelerated clock measures a different rate of time passing, as confirmed by the experiments with atomic clocks.In my scenarios, the difference in the rate of time passing, as measured by clocks, is not in accord with the axioms of Special Relativity, it is governed by the difference in the gravitational wave energy density profile of the local space in which the identical clocks are functioning. They function at different rates because they are in different gravitational wave energy density situations (different relative acceleration conditions).
So, one issue that we need to work out is that you seem to be talking from the perspective of Special Relativity, where the speed of light is always c, and I am talking about events in the real medium of space, where there are light waves and gravitational waves being emitted and being absorbed to/from the surrounding medium of space, and where massive objects are all in relative motion and are influencing what I like to call the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.
Do you have any inclination to talk through these issues, and see where we agree and where we don’t?
Post by: David Cooper on 28/11/2018 22:38:54
I’ll repeat: “Please note that I have not said that time slows down. I have said that the rate that two identical clocks measure the passing of time differs when they are in relative motion to each other. I also include the twin's human bodies as clocks. When one twin is accelerated relative to one at rest, the accelerated twin ages slower, just like the accelerated clock measures a different rate of time passing, as confirmed by the experiments with atomic clocks.”
Indeed - every cell in the body is like a clock with its functionality being slowed by fast movement through space and by depth in a gravity well. Every atom is like a clock too, and the radioactive ones which decay have their decay rate slowed to match. All functionality is slowed by speed of travel through space and depth in a gravity well. But time itself isn't slowed - all theories that claim that time itself is slowed contain fatal flaws that rule them out, but it's very hard to get anyone in the establishment to accept this as they simply reject the proof out of hand and appeal to authority instead, backing each other up in an entirely circular manner while refusing to address the contradictions they rest on.
Quote
To start that talk, is this the right link to use to describe the light clocks that you use? https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_clock (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_clock)
That page is a cluttered mess. A light clock is simple - it's just like two people kicking a football to and fro, but we replace the ball with a pulse of light, one of the people is replaced with a mirror, and the other is the light emitter/detector. Every time a pulse is detected as returning, a new one is sent out (or the existing one can be reflected back again). Every detection of a pulse of light returning is a clock tick. Incidentally, the MMX is essentially a pair of light clocks at 90 degrees to each other, so that can be used too, and just as alignment of an arm with the direction of travel of the apparatus causes length contraction, a normal light clock aligned the same way will be equally contracted - this ensures that both light clocks in the pair always tick at the same rate as each other.
Quote
If so, then from that Wiki:
“We also know that the speed of light, c, is constant. No matter who measures it, it turns out to be the same speed. So we can use that fact to get another way of calculating how long it takes for the flash of light to go from the base to the top of the pole and back again…”
Note that when it talks about measuring the speed of light, it doesn't (or shouldn't) mean the speed of light relative to the apparatus which can vary wildly from c, but they don't want to discuss that issue, and they're happy for people to read it as meaning that the speed of light doesn't vary relative to any object, even though that's impossible if the speed of light through space is c and objects are allowed to move.
Quote
But wait; c is a constant at 0 degrees Kelvin in an environment that is not influenced by gravity or magnetic fields or any outside influences like the relative motion of massive objects. We certainly don’t have any such perfect vacuums or locations uninfluenced by the presence of massive objects in relative motion to each other when we discuss twins and rocket ships and acceleration through the medium of space. I equate those events to real situations of relative motion through the real medium of space that is filled with light and gravity waves coming and going in all directions, at all points.
In deep space, the tiny amount of gravity imposing itself on the content of that space is so small that it can be disregarded. The amount of energy moving through that space in the form of light from distant galaxies is also tiny and can be disregarded. Think about gravitational lensing first. The sun distorts the path light takes when that light passes close to the sun, but light further out is hardly affected at all and we don't see much optical distortion. If you look at the background of space past the moon, you don't see any distortion - there will be some, but you won't be able to measure it. This means that the speed of light in the space near the Earth is hardly affected by gravity at all - it's a very small effect even down on the surface where we are a very shallow gravity well. The tiny slowing of light here where we are is almost as trivial as the slowing of clocks that we get by moving them "fast" in the slow vehicles we've designed (such as satellites). If we're dealing with the twins paradox in deep space with speeds of travel like 0.866c, we can ignore any influences of gravity altogether as they simply won't register.
Quote
The velocity of the light and gravity waves is variable under real conditions, depending on the local gravitational wave energy density of the local space (akin to the curvature of spacetime in GR). Does that statement leave you cold, ...
It is an irrelevance due to its astronomically tiny impact on things. It becomes a huge factor if you're near a black hole, but that's an exceptional case and we are nowhere near anything of that kind.
Quote
...or do you get where I am coming from when I say:Please note that I have not said that time slows down. I have said that the rate that two identical clocks measure the passing of time differs when they are in relative motion to each other. I also include the twin's human bodies as clocks. When one twin is accelerated relative to one at rest, the accelerated twin ages slower, just like the accelerated clock measures a different rate of time passing, as confirmed by the experiments with atomic clocks.
That's fine, but remember that you said earlier that "We define time as a measurement done by a clock." If a clock runs slow and it measures time correctly, then time must have slowed, but a slowed clock fails to measure time correctly and time has not slowed.
Quote
In my scenarios, the difference in the rate of time passing is not in accord with the axioms of Special Relativity, it is governed by the difference in the gravitational wave energy density profile of the local space in which the identical clocks are functioning. They function at different rates because they are in different gravitational wave energy density situations (different relative acceleration conditions).
When they're passing each other, they're in the same location with the same conditions applying to them, but they can also move a long way apart without there being any significant difference in the conditions for them, so the only factor worth considering in working out why one clock ticks less than the other is their speed of travel through space. There is no possibility of any other factor having a useful role in explaining the twins paradox result. Also though, if you do a version of it in a lab deep in a gravity well and have the travelling twin go round and round in circles at high speed without ever moving far from the stay-at-home twin, you'll still have a fully-functional twins paradox experiment in which the travelling twin ages a lot less. You can do that with a particle accelerator and compare how long it takes for unstable particles to decay in comparison with their relatively stationary twins. Gravity affects both twins in such a case, but in a way that enables it to be ignored entirely.
Quote
So, one issue that we need to work out is that you seem to be talking from the perspective of Special Relativity, where the speed of light is always c, and I am talking about events in the real medium of space, where there are light waves and gravitational waves being emitted and being absorbed to/from the surrounding medium of space, and where massive objects are all in relative motion and are influencing what I like to call the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.
Do you have any inclination to talk through these issues, and see where we agree and where we don’t?
If you think it need further discussion, then go for it, but I think I've covered it already. The only factor relevant to the extended lifespan of unstable particles in particle accelerators is their speed of travel through space slowing their functionality and decay rate.
Post by: jimbobghost on 29/11/2018 18:17:12
it's refreshing to read a post of scientific value, in a forum dedicated to science :)
Post by: guest39538 on 29/11/2018 18:22:53
David,
it's refreshing to read a post of scientific value, in a forum dedicated to science :)
Bonjour, je viens de pirater ce compte
hahaha, imbéciles
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/11/2018 19:51:53
If you think it need further discussion, then go for it, but I think I've covered it already. The only factor relevant to the extended lifespan of unstable particles in particle accelerators is their speed of travel through space slowing their functionality and decay rate.Ok, if you have covered it already, I'm good.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/11/2018 16:38:54
David is not alone. He has, and I think Thebox too, has an issue with one generally accepted point he mentioned. That point was that the relative motion of an object does not add to or change the speed of light emitted from that object (or the speed of light measured by an apparatus on board that moving object). Science says that the velocity of light is always c in vacua, i.e., in empty space.If you think it need further discussion, then go for it, but I think I've covered it already …Ok, if you have covered it already, I'm good.
What I think @David Cooper and @Thebox mean is, for example, that if a speeding rocket has a head light, then one might think that the velocity of the light emitted by the head light might be c plus the velocity of the rocket. If that were the case, that would make the velocity of the rocket’s emitted light greater than the velocity through the same space of a beam of light from an independent source. The position of the scientific theory is, that regardless of the relative motion between the independent source of light and the motion of the rocket ship, both will traverse the same space at the same velocity. It follows that if that space was a vacuum, both would be traveling at c.
Theory says that the rocket’s head light beam will be emitted at, and travel through that local space at the same velocity as the beam of light traveling through the same space from any other source, going in any direction. The scientific position is that the speed of light in a vacuum is always c, and the velocity of light is slower than c in common space.
That is not just by definition (though that is a big part of it), but experiments are getting better at approximating the velocity of light in a vacuum, and there is every indication that it is going to ultimately be c, when, if ever, a perfect vacuum is available for testing (it won’t happen soon, lol). You need to try to envision all light in space from all sources, nearby and distant stars, etc., would be traversing the same patch of space at the same velocity, and if that space were to be a perfect vacuum, all of the light from all sources, regardless of their relative motion when the light is emitted, will be traveling through the same patch of space at the same velocity.
So let’s say science has it right. Then David, and Thebox, and many others would apparently have it wrong. The velocity of the light emitted by the headlight of a speeding rocket will never exceed c in a vacuum, even as the rocket approaches the speed of light itself. My take on the reason why, in less that 1000 words is:
[(Caution), the following contains ideas that are outside of current mainstream consensus thinking, and are posted for purposes of “Just Chat”]
1) First, there is the stipulation that the speed of light in space cannot exceed c, by theory, but because space is not a perfect vacuum, light traversing it could never really be going quite at c in the first place. So if it is never quite c, then what is it and why isn’t it c.
2) It isn’t c because there is no empty space, and c requires a vacuum consisting of empty space at 0 degrees Kelvin, with no outside influences. Because space is not a perfect vacuum, there is no light traversing space at c. But if the space through which light is traveling were to be cleared of everything in it (except the light waves in question), the velocity of that light would adjust itself, and if measured, would be found to be going at c, in accord with the premise that the velocity of light through a vacuum is always c.
3) What is in “otherwise empty space”, aside from the presence of our rocket and our beams of light, and various stray particles? In addition to particles and objects, space is filled with gravitational waves as predicted by Einstein, and as has been verified by LIGO. In addition to gravitational waves coming and going in all directions, there are influences like other light wave fronts going to and from all directions, the presence of massive objects, related magnetic fields, electric fields, etc. All of those things have a presence in space that affects the velocity of light through that space; one might call it the gravitational wave energy density profile of the local space. Depending on the density of all of those influences, the velocity of light through the local space is subject to those influences, and must be considered to be variable.
4) We know that objects in relative motion to each other emit gravitational waves because LIGO and ESA interferometers have detected them. Though the sources of the detected gravitational waves have so far been from massively energetic events like the in-swirling death spiral of two black holes or neutron stars, the simple event of an apple falling from a tree also emits seemingly insignificant amounts of gravitational wave energy associated with its motion as it falls, relative to the Earth. Those insignificant energy events all have the theoretical endless reach of gravity, and tiny as they are, combined with a potentially infinite amount of mass in the universe, the tiny increments of gravitational wave energy does add up to be meaningful at all points in space.
5) If #4 is true, than all particles are composed of wave energy, and would be classified as wave-particles, composed of wave energy that is emitted and absorbed in quantum increments. On that basis, photons would have mass, and would be the only particles traversing space at the speed of light because they are emitted by orbital electrons at the speed of light. Photons, with mass, would then logically be emitting their own out flowing gravitational wave energy like all objects with mass, but the photon wave-particle is unique because its out flowing gravitational wave energy component is emitted spherically while the photon itself is traveling in an essentially straight path through the local space at the speed of light. That would make light, which is associated with all photons, the out flowing gravitational wave energy component from the photon wave-particles. Though the emission of “light” would be unique to the photon wave-particle, every object, every particle with mass, every energetic event associated with relative motion between any and every two objects, will emit gravitational wave energy into the local gravitational wave energy density profile of space. Their gravitational wave energy will traverse space until the energy wave fronts are interrupted by being absorbed by other particles and objects.
6) Logic tells us that if objects emit gravitational wave energy at the local speed light, then unless they have a natural way to absorb energy to replace the emitted gravitational wave energy, they would “evaporate”. If they evaporated, soon space would not contain any massive objects at all. Space would be filled with only the energy equivalent of all matter, in the form of gravitational wave energy traversing the medium of space in all directions, at the local speed of light and gravity. As far as I know, Science does not yet teach the general topic of the inflow and out flow of gravitational wave energy components by massive objects, so if the logic seems right to anyone, like it does to me, then it is another “as yet” unknown that awaits being addressed by the scientific community. I call it the Big Wait, lol.
7) If all particles are wave-particles, composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments, then photons would contain mass equivalent to the quanta that they contain as a result of their emission from electrons. Photons would maintain a presence in space as massive particles, composed of quanta, via their hypothetical inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy components as hypothesized above. Uniquely though, all of the photon’s inflowing wave energy component would come from just one direction, the direction of their motion through space, enabling then to always travel at the local speed of light in the direction of the inflowing component of wave energy from the unique direction of motion imparted to them when they were emitted by the electron.
8) In conclusion, for those reasons, the velocity of the light emitted by the headlight of a speeding rocket will never exceed c in a vacuum, even as the rocket approaches the speed of light itself.
Post by: David Cooper on 30/11/2018 23:33:09
David is not alone. He has, and I think Thebox too, has an issue with one generally accepted point he mentioned.
I don't know sufficiently well what The Box's current position is, so I can't speak for him.
Quote
That point was that the relative motion of an object does not add to or change the speed of light emitted from that object (or the speed of light measured by an apparatus on board that moving object). Science says that the velocity of light is always c in vacua, i.e., in empty space.
I have no issue with that at all. If you travel at 0.99c, the light from your headlights moves at c, and that means it's only 0.01c faster than you (although you will still measure it as moving at c relative to you if you assume that you are at rest).
Quote
...The position of the scientific theory is, that regardless of the relative motion between the independent source of light and the motion of the rocket ship, both will traverse the same space at the same velocity. It follows that if that space was a vacuum, both would be traveling at c.
Indeed - light emitted from the rocket will be of a much higher frequency than the people in the rocket think, although it will be suppressed a bit by the functionality of that emitter running slow.
Quote
So let’s say science has it right. Then David, and Thebox, and many others would apparently have it wrong.
Again, I can't speak for the box, but you've misread my position. The speed of light through space (whether the aether or vacuum) is c (unless it's slowed by gravity, but that's irrelevant in deep space and is barely relevant here too). It's actually Einstein's original SR that broke the rule by making out that the speed of light relative to object A is c in every direction relative to object A while the speed of light relative to object B is also c in every direction relative to object B even though objects A and B are moving relative to each other. The result of that would be that the light moving relative to object A at c could be overtaken by the light moving relative to object B at c along the exact same path. That would have to be possible if all frames of reference are equally true. In reality, only one frame can be providing a true account of reality and all the others must be wrong.
Quote
1) First, there is the stipulation that the speed of light in space cannot exceed c, by theory, but because space is not a perfect vacuum, light traversing it could never really be going quite at c in the first place. So if it is never quite c, then what is it and why isn’t it c.
Being an infinitesimal amount slower than c can be counted as c when dealing with the twins paradox.
Quote
2) It isn’t c because there is no empty space, and c requires a vacuum consisting of empty space at 0 degrees Kelvin, with no outside influences. Because space is not a perfect vacuum, there is no light traversing space at c. But if the space through which light is traveling were to be cleared of everything in it (except the light waves in question), the velocity of that light would adjust itself, and if measured, would be found to be going at c, in accord with the premise that the velocity of light through a vacuum is always c.
If you carry out the twins paradox deep in a gravity well, the speed of light there might be 0.5c, but if so, the functionality of every component of the experiment is also running with its functionality running at half the rate it would do in deep space, so all you're doing is complifying it by bringing in an unnecessary gravity field which has an equal effect on everything. In deep space though, the amount of stuff you have flying though that space is so lacking in mass that there is practically no gravity well depth there at all.
Quote
3) What is in “otherwise empty space”, aside from the presence of our rocket and our beams of light, and various stray particles? In addition to particles and objects, space is filled with gravitational waves as predicted by Einstein, and as has been verified by LIGO. In addition to gravitational waves coming and going in all directions, there are influences like other light wave fronts going to and from all directions, the presence of massive objects, related magnetic fields, electric fields, etc. All of those things have a presence in space that affects the velocity of light through that space; one might call it the gravitational wave energy density profile of the local space. Depending on the density of all of those influences, the velocity of light through the local space is subject to those influences, and must be considered to be variable.
You are obsessed with an infinitesimally small factor - it would be like arguing about the impact on a race between two runners where one has had a bacterium dropped onto his head before the start - for sure it will slow him down because it adds mass to him, but it is not a factor worth considering unless you have timing equipment that can measure brazillionths of a femtosecond.
Quote
4) We know that objects in relative motion to each other emit gravitational waves because LIGO and ESA interferometers have detected them. Though the sources of the detected gravitational waves have so far been from massively energetic events like the in-swirling death spiral of two black holes or neutron stars, the simple event of an apple falling from a tree also emits seemingly insignificant amounts of gravitational wave energy associated with its motion as it falls, relative to the Earth. Those insignificant energy events all have the theoretical endless reach of gravity, and tiny as they are, combined with a potentially infinite amount of mass in the universe, the tiny increments of gravitational wave energy does add up to be meaningful at all points in space.
They add up to virtually nothing if your interest is in how much they slow the speed of light.
Quote
6) Logic tells us that if objects emit gravitational wave energy at the local speed light, then unless they have a natural way to absorb energy to replace the emitted gravitational wave energy, they would “evaporate”.
Then that tells you that they don't ordinarily emit such energy, and that when they do so, it is taken from the kinetic energy they're carrying and not from the structural energy of which they are made.
Quote
7) If all particles are wave-particles, composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments, then photons would contain mass equivalent to the quanta that they contain as a result of their emission from electrons. Photons would maintain a presence in space as massive particles, composed of quanta, via their hypothetical inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy components as hypothesized above. Uniquely though, all of the photon’s inflowing wave energy component would come from just one direction, the direction of their motion through space, enabling then to always travel at the local speed of light in the direction of the inflowing component of wave energy from the unique direction of motion imparted to them when they were emitted by the electron.
8) In conclusion, for those reasons, the velocity of the light emitted by the headlight of a speeding rocket will never exceed c in a vacuum, even as the rocket approaches the speed of light itself.
There's a much simpler reason for the speed of light not exceeding c, and that's that c is the speed that space-dependent waves travel at through the fabric of space just as the speed of the sound is the speed that air-dependent waves travel through air. We know though just by looking out at the space around us that there is little in the way of distortion - the speed of light out there is practically c because if there was significant variation, there would be very obvious optical effects which we simply aren't seeing.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/12/2018 19:18:56
I have no issue with that at all. If you travel at 0.99c, the light from your headlights moves at c, and that means it's only 0.01c faster than you (although you will still measure it as moving at c relative to you if you assume that you are at rest).
Indeed - light emitted from the rocket will be of a much higher frequency than the people in the rocket think, although it will be suppressed a bit by the functionality of that emitter running slow.
Again, I can't speak for the box, but you've misread my position. The speed of light through space (whether the aether or vacuum) is c (unless it's slowed by gravity, but that's irrelevant in deep space and is barely relevant here too). It's actually Einstein's original SR that broke the rule by making out that the speed of light relative to object A is c in every direction relative to object A while the speed of light relative to object B is also c in every direction relative to object B even though objects A and B are moving relative to each other. The result of that would be that the light moving relative to object A at c could be overtaken by the light moving relative to object B at c along the exact same path. That would have to be possible if all frames of reference are equally true. In reality, only one frame can be providing a true account of reality and all the others must be wrong.
Being an infinitesimal amount slower than c can be counted as c when dealing with the twins paradox.
If you carry out the twins paradox deep in a gravity well, the speed of light there might be 0.5c, but if so, the functionality of every component of the experiment is also running with its functionality running at half the rate it would do in deep space, so all you're doing is complifying it by bringing in an unnecessary gravity field which has an equal effect on everything. In deep space though, the amount of stuff you have flying though that space is so lacking in mass that there is practically no gravity well depth there at all.
You are obsessed with an infinitesimally small factor - it would be like arguing about the impact on a race between two runners where one has had a bacterium dropped onto his head before the start - for sure it will slow him down because it adds mass to him, but it is not a factor worth considering unless you have timing equipment that can measure brazillionths of a femtosecond.
They add up to virtually nothing if your interest is in how much they slow the speed of light.
Then that tells you that they don't ordinarily emit such energy, and that when they do so, it is taken from the kinetic energy they're carrying and not from the structural energy of which they are made.
There's a much simpler reason for the speed of light not exceeding c, and that's that c is the speed that space-dependent waves travel at through the fabric of space just as the speed of the sound is the speed that air-dependent waves travel through air. We know though just by looking out at the space around us that there is little in the way of distortion - the speed of light out there is practically c because if there was significant variation, there would be very obvious optical effects which we simply aren't seeing.
Let’s see if we agree on what the main point is that stimulates our discussion:
I’m on record in this thread saying that 1) there is no absolute time. Briefly, 2) my position is that the universe has always existed and so there never was a start of time or an original point of space, and 3) the rate that a clock measures the passing of time is governed by the local energy density where the clock is ticking away. 4) There is no clock, light clock, atomic clock, human twins, etc. that can measure the passing of absolute time.
I listed four points. If you agree that we need to define the scope of our discussion, would you mind stating your response to each of my four points?
Further:
https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/time-dilation1.htm (https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/time-dilation1.htm)
Quote from: howstuffworks link
included in the "Principia Mathematica" a scholium, or an appendix of explanatory notes, and in it he defined several important principles, including the idea of absolute time. Although he understood that (https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/clocks-watches/clock.htm)clocks[/url] weren't perfect and measuring time was subject to human error, Newton believed in an absolute time that was similar to a universal, omnipotent God-like time, one that was the same for everyone, everywhere. In other words, someone standing at the North Pole on (https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/earth.htm)Earth[/url] would experience time the same way as someone standing on (https://science.howstuffworks.com/mars.htm)Mars[/url].[/font][/size]
5) Do you believe in absolute time as defined by Newton?
Post by: David Cooper on 01/12/2018 23:26:50
Let’s see if we agree on what the main point is that stimulates our discussion:
I’m on record in this thread saying that 1) there is no absolute time. Briefly, 2) my position is that the universe has always existed and so there never was a start of time or an original point of space, and 3) the rate that a clock measures the passing of time is governed by the local energy density where the clock is ticking away. 4) There is no clock, light clock, atomic clock, human twins, etc. that can measure the passing of absolute time.
I listed four points. If you agree that we need to define the scope of our discussion, would you mind stating your response to each of my four points?
(1) I say there is an absolute time and that some clocks come closer than others to measuring it. Clocks that are moving under-record the amount of time that has passed, and so do clocks in a gravity well.
(2) We seem to have an expanding space fabric, but this may be expanding within an outer fabric (with more dimensions) which doesn't expand or contract (we can only speculate about that). The universe is the inner fabric which can expand and contract, but it may be of infinite duration (with the time between two big bongs being a chapter of the universe if it's possible for it to contract back down to a point). We can only speculate about this at present, but the idea that time started at the big bong is an SR/GR idea based on the "time dimension" being time - a "time dimension" is not time though, so it's a bogus idea.
(3) The local energy density is related to the rate at which a clock runs slow, and all clocks have some energy in them which must cause an infinitesimal slowing of their functionality even if they're in an empty universe. Even a photon travelling through space provides an energy density >0 which means that it must slow itself down to a speed below c - a lower frequency photon should move faster than a higher frequency photon. This slowing is such a tiny effect though for a single photon that a gamma ray photon and radio wave photon should effectively travel at the same speed across billions of lightyears of space - the other radiation around them as they travel will affect them equally and will slow them down much more, but there are more photons in the space near where we are due to the presence of the sun, and they have little slowing effect where we are, so by the time you're in deep space, it's an irrelevant effect. Of more relevance could be the virtual particles "pinging into and out of existance" 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, but such an effect would be universal and has no impact on the twins paradox result, so at least we can discuss the implications of the twins paradox and come to reliable conclusions about some aspects of how the universe works. I also doubt that virtual particles count towards energy density though, but they take me outside of the range of my knowledge, so I can't rule that possibility in or out yet.
(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.
Quote
Further:
https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/time-dilation1.htm (https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/time-dilation1.htm)Quote from: howstuffworks linkincluded in the "Principia Mathematica" a scholium, or an appendix of explanatory notes, and in it he defined several important principles, including the idea of absolute time. Although he understood that (https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/clocks-watches/clock.htm)clocks[/url] weren't perfect and measuring time was subject to human error, Newton believed in an absolute time that was similar to a universal, omnipotent God-like time, one that was the same for everyone, everywhere. In other words, someone standing at the North Pole on (https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/earth.htm)Earth[/url] would experience time the same way as someone standing on (https://science.howstuffworks.com/mars.htm)Mars[/url].[/font][/size]
5) Do you believe in absolute time as defined by Newton?
His definition is wrong where it says they "would experience time the same way" - they wouldn't because someone standing on Mars would record more time passing than someone standing on the Earth during the same length of absolute time. Both are exposed to the same amount of absolute time though. A photon travelling from location X to location Y and back again might take a year to make the trip, but it has its functionality (or rather, the component of its functionality that isn't simply it's movement through space) completely frozen by its speed of travel, so no time is recorded by its "clock", and yet it has been exposed to a year of absolute time during its travels.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 02/12/2018 14:09:25
Thank you, I understand, and you are not one to speculate. Your position is well stated, and for the most part, the differences between us are in areas where I am speculating beyond where you go, not limiting myself to known science and generally accepted theory.
I explain my scenarios as starting from various jumping off points in generally accepted physics and cosmology, and then venturing into the “as yet” unknowns. I fill the gaps between known science and the as yet unknowns with what I call "logic", trying to achieve a “prime objective” that I define as my personal view of cosmology, called the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model. I claim the ISU is internally consistent, and not inconsistent with generally accepted scientific observations and data.
I post my version of logic in various threads at a variety of science forums around the Internet, and that exposes my thinking to my layman level peers, who often willingly critique it, offer opposing arguments, criticism, encouragement, etc, but their job is to falsify my speculations or point out inconsistencies. When and if they do, I then go back to the drawing board to work to bring the model back to meet my personal objective of internal consistency while avoiding inconsistencies with known science. I have been doing that for years.
The process that I invoke to develop and evolve the speculations that make up the ISU model is a “methodology” that I label as “reasonable and responsible” step-by-step speculation and hypothesis.
I am continually trying to apply quantum thinking to the entire model, so that the processes work consistently between two main levels of quantized action. At the macro level, I invoke a process of big bang arena action, and at the micro level, I invoke a process of quantum action, and together they defeat entropy via two competing forces, quantum gravity and energy density equalization (expansion from dense environments of wave energy density to less dense environments). I have presented most of it here in my thread, "If there was one big bang event, why not multiple big bangs?"
Both levels are quantized in my model, and there is a striking “sameness” between the quantum processes at the macro and micro levels. The Big Bang Arena Process of the model features multiple big bang arena waves across the landscape of the greater universe, where big bang arenas like our own expanding arena wave, converge, overlap, and form big crunches out of their shared galactic matter and energy. Those crunches, through accretion, reach a limit called critical capacity, whereupon they collapse/bang into hot, dense expanding balls of plasma that expand, decay through a series of exotic particles until their space is filled with the essentially stable particles and galactic structure that we observe in our Hubble view.
There is a similar scenario at the quantum level, where the counterpart to the big crunch is called a momentary high energy density spot, consisting of the convergence of many very tiny low energy gravitational waves that carry the tiniest increments of energy. High energy density spots support the presence of wave-particles that have survived the cooling, the expansion, and the decay of the hot dense plasma balls that emerge from the collapse/bang of the preceding big crunches.
These tiny energy increments are instrumental in the process of quantum action to not only produce and maintain the presence of wave-particles, but they also enable quantum gravity. The ISU model includes my proposed solution to quantum gravity, which I detail in my thread, “What are they saying about quantum gravity?”.
That is what I do, lol. Thank you for your participation, and if you ever want to venture into the “as yet” unknown, feel free to run your speculations and quantum thinking past me for some thoughtful contemplation.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/12/2018 13:16:26
Continuing the chat by going back, lol …
I wanted to address the particulars in David Cooper’s last post. I don’t intend for @David Cooper to feel obligated to respond, because he has spoken eloquently about his positions, and I respect what he believes. I am not refuting anything he says from the perspective that he offers it. My comments are from the perspective of the ISU model and reflect my personal logic only.
I don’t have to believe in absolute time in order to understand what David is saying. He would be correct if there could be such a thing as absolute time, and in his universal view, that means that there could conceivably be a location in space where the speed of light is actually c.
(1) I say there is an absolute time and that some clocks come closer than others to measuring it. Clocks that are moving under-record the amount of time that has passed, and so do clocks in a gravity well.
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.
When you consider the nature of limits, (as you approach an absolute value you are approaching a limit), the slope of the rate of change that characterizes the approaching limit is displayed by a slope that approaches straight up:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_03_12_18_11_39_25.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_03_12_18_11_39_25.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_03_12_18_11_39_25.jpeg)
The upward curve of the graph represents the rate of decline in the energy density of space relative to zero density. Until the slope is very steep, the energy density of the local space is still pretty high, relative to the point where the curve approaches it steepest.
Quote
(2) We seem to have an expanding space fabric, but this may be expanding within an outer fabric (with more dimensions) which doesn't expand or contract (we can only speculate about that). The universe is the inner fabric which can expand and contract, but it may be of infinite duration (with the time between two big bongs being a chapter of the universe if it's possible for it to contract back down to a point). We can only speculate about this at present, but the idea that time started at the big bong is an SR/GR idea based on the "time dimension" being time - a "time dimension" is not time though, so it's a bogus idea.That is a round-about way of making the point, and I get it. What you call the inner expanding space fabric is akin to what we observe in our Hubble view, where distant galaxies have red shifts that indicate that galaxies and galactic structure are all moving away from each other at an accelerating rate, as far as we can see. And in my ISU model, that is consistent with observations within our expanding big bang arena wave. But in an infinite and eternal universe like the ISU model, it is not the case. When the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe is the perspective, the universe is an infinite, steady state of dynamic, perpetual, big bang arena action, where entropy is defeated, and where there is no location where absolute zero temperature exists (required for c to occur, and for absolute time to exist).
Quote
(3) The local energy density is related to the rate at which a clock runs slow, and all clocks have some energy in them which must cause an infinitesimal slowing of their functionality even if they're in an empty universe.Agreed.
Quote
Even a photon traveling through space provides an energy density >0 which means that it must slow itself down to a speed below c - a lower frequency photon should move faster than a higher frequency photon.Agreed.
Quote
This slowing is such a tiny effect though for a single photon that a gamma ray photon and radio wave photon should effectively travel at the same speed across billions of lightyears of space - the other radiation around them as they travel will affect them equally and will slow them down much more, but there are more photons in the space near where we are due to the presence of the sun, and they have little slowing effect where we are, so by the time you're in deep space, it's an irrelevant effect.https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_03_12_18_11_39_25.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_03_12_18_11_39_25.jpeg)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.
Quote
… but such an effect would be universal and has no impact on the twins paradox result, so at least we can discuss the implications of the twins paradox and come to reliable conclusions about some aspects of how the universe works.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
I also doubt that virtual particles count towards energy density though, but they take me outside of the range of my knowledge, so I can't rule that possibility in or out yet.Coincidently, that is where I use the methodology of speculation and hypothesis. I speculate that the presence of higher energy density is directly related to a higher occurrence of virtual particles.
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.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.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)
Quote
His definition is wrong where it says they "would experience time the same way" - they wouldn't because someone standing on Mars would record more time passing than someone standing on the Earth during the same length of absolute time. Both are exposed to the same amount of absolute time though. A photon traveling from location X to location Y and back again might take a year to make the trip, but it has its functionality (or rather, the component of its functionality that isn't simply its movement through space) completely frozen by its speed of travel, so no time is recorded by its "clock", and yet it has been exposed to a year of absolute time during its travels.My expected come back is that there is no absolute time in the ISU, so does anyone else want to weigh in on the chat about absolute time? This is the absolute time to do that, lol.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/12/2018 14:48:27
My expected come back is that there is no absolute time in the ISU,Space does not age or alter , it is 0 constant .
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/12/2018 14:56:34
I agree, on the basis that in my ISU model, space is always infinite, and though time simply passes, it is measured by clocks to be passing at different rates based on the local energy density of the environment where the measurement is being made.My expected come back is that there is no absolute time in the ISU,Space does not age or alter , it is 0 constant .
Post by: guest39538 on 03/12/2018 14:58:51
Time does not pass by ., things age relative to space 0 constant . We don't measure ''time'' , we record history .I agree, on the basis that in my ISU model, space is always infinite, and though time simply passes, it is measured by clocks to be passing at different rates based on the local energy density of the environment where the measurement is being made.My expected come back is that there is no absolute time in the ISU,Space does not age or alter , it is 0 constant .
Aging changes due to energy density , go nearer the Sun you will age fast .
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/12/2018 15:37:21
Time does not pass by ., things age relative to space 0 constant . We don't measure ''time'' , we record history .Interesting concept, but give me some space to post from a perspective that differs from your zero constant space model. I speak from my personal view, the ISU model I’ve been chatting about, and though I certainly don’t present my view as being factual because I don’t offer any extraordinary evidence, I don’t consider your view to be factual either, for the same reason, lol.
Quote
Aging changes due to energy density , go nearer the Sun you will age fast .Not in the ISU; you age slower as the energy density increases, as it does as you approach the sun, unless you count burning to a crisp as aging fast.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/12/2018 15:48:25
I don’t consider your view to be factual either, for the same reason, lol.Please feel free to measure the aging of space , try to destroy space . You can remove all the matter from the universe , but you can't remove space, can't create space , space is nothingness, nothingness can not be less than nothingness it can only be more than nothingness.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/12/2018 16:04:28
Please feel free to measure the aging of space , try to destroy space . You can remove all the matter from the universe , but you can't remove space, can't create space , space is nothingness, nothingness can not be less than nothingness it can only be more than nothingness.OK, I have gathered up all of the matter in the universe so we can get it out of space; Now where do you want me to put it?
Edit: I know where you are going to suggest, but forget it, it won't all fit there, lol.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/12/2018 16:20:08
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 .Please feel free to measure the aging of space , try to destroy space . You can remove all the matter from the universe , but you can't remove space, can't create space , space is nothingness, nothingness can not be less than nothingness it can only be more than nothingness.OK, I have gathered up all of the matter in the universe so we can get it out of space; Now where do you want me to put it?
Edit: I know where you are going to suggest, but forget it, it won't all fit there, lol.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/12/2018 22:32:28
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 .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?
Post by: Colin2B on 03/12/2018 22:40:06
Quote from: Bogie_smiles link=topic=75389.msg561358#msg561358 date=
Now where do you want me to put it?Maybe not, but there are a few people on here with the capacity ;)
Edit: I know where you are going to suggest, but forget it, it won't all fit there, lol.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/12/2018 22:48:16
That is a shocking thought, shocking ;)
Maybe not, but there are a few people on here with the capacity ;)
Post by: jimbobghost on 03/12/2018 22:58:20
(as well as stealing names from said movie). :)
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/12/2018 23:00:28
ripping off and paraphrasing lines from Casablanca is not worthy of you Bogie.you've been Googling :).
(as well as stealing names from said movie). :)
Post by: jimbobghost on 03/12/2018 23:03:33
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/12/2018 23:10:45
https://itunes.apple.com/US/movie/id282640192
Post by: David Cooper on 03/12/2018 23:13:25
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.
Light being prevented from reaching c doesn't prevent there being absolute time. You can slow light down using a medium, and even halt it in some of them, but time goes on flowing at full speed regardless.
Quote
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.
As you descend into a gravity well (picture a black hole as the source of that gravity), the slowing of clocks is more severe the further you go down, but the increase in slowing is also more rapid as you go deeper. If we start just outside the event horizon and then move a lightyear away from there, our clock will go from hardly ticking to ticking at practically full speed. If we move another lightyear away from there, the clock will speed up only a tiny amount more. If we move a billion lightyears further away into deep space, the clock will again only speed up a tiny bit more. We are by this time in a region of space with little light passing through it and little gravitational influence too - there is next to nothing slowing the light. I think your graph is incorrect - it should show that when the energy density is low, the light is already moving at a speed practically indistinguishable from c, and this remains the case even when we have the energy density of a planet right next to us as we stand on its surface. The slowing only really kicks in hard when you get to neutron stars and black holes.
Quote
QuoteOf 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.
If you have a high energy density everywhere because of this invisible, virtual stuff, that doesn't change the shape of the graph, but merely puts a lower ceiling on the practical speed of light. Suppose for example that the minimum energy density is so high that light is only ever able to travel at a tenth of the speed that it could if that energy wasn't there slowing it down - we then have light being very slow (almost zero speed) next to a black hole, but it would already be travelling at almost a tenth of the "speed of light" at a lightyear away from the black hole, and it would be travelling only a tiny amount faster (still almost a tenth of the "speed of light") in deep space a billion lightyears away from the black hole. Note that I used quote signs around "speed of light" (like I've just done again), and I've had to do that because in a universe where light can only go at a tenth the "speed of light" due to a high minimum energy density in space, it isn't really right to call that higher speed the speed of light as light never gets anywhere near it - it becomes a potential speed of light instead; one that would only be realised in a universe that provides zero energy density somewhere so that light can actually go that fast.
(Quite apart from energy density issues, we might also have space fabric changes affecting the speed of light and reducing it as the fabric expands - this could account for the apparent increase in the speed of the expansion, because it may just be an apparent speeding up of the expansion caused by our clocks running slower. We could see the expansion get faster and faster until it looks almost infinitely fast, but if that's actually because our clocks have almost stopped ticking entirely, then that expansion could actually be at its slowest, and a tick later the universe could suddenly look as if it's contracting almost infinitely quickly. The race towards a big crunch would then appear to slow down as our clocks tick faster and give us a truer picture of the rate of collapse.)
Quote
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.
If you run the twins paradox experiment in a universe where light is actually travelling at c, it will produce the same measured results as if you run it in a universe where light travels at 1/10 c instead, just as happens if you run the twins paradox experiment in a gravity well where the actual speed of light is less than c but where we measure it as apparently going at c. The lower ceiling on the speed of light makes no difference to the results - if something moves at 0.866 of the speed that the light is travelling, the speed of its functionality will be halved when compared with something that's stationary.
Quote
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.
You can stuff space full of as much energy as you like, just so long as you don't reach the point where you stop light moving altogether (like happens at the event horizon of a black hole). So long as you allow light to move, it will still move at slower speed in a gravity well, and clocks will still run slow when you move them, stopping ticking once they are moving at the same speed through space as light is able to move at.
Quote
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)
First I need to know what you mean when you talk about gravitational wave energy. Are you talking about the waves that LIGO detects (which only show up when extremely massive objects accelerate hard), or are you talking about normal gravity and calling it waves because you imagine that it must propagate as waves in order to generate gravitational pull? Most objects aren't putting out the former, and I don't think any of them are putting out the latter - gravity cannot propagate out of a black hole, so what actually causes gravity must be the spread out nature of matter which keeps most of a particle out of a black hole even if the centre of that particle has been swallowed. Gravity is caused by a slowing of the speed of light, and it's slowed by a medium. That medium is an invisible extension of the matter that we see and it surrounds the visible part in a similar way to dark matter (and it provides a higher energy density there). It is not the same thing as dark matter though, because dark matter is supposed to be able to pull on things distant from itself, whereas this invisible extension of normal matter that I'm talking about can only affect things that are passing through it.
Quote
My expected come back is that there is no absolute time in the ISU...
What we can show with a correct analysis of the twins paradox is that there must be an absolute time. If we switch to a 4D Minkowski model, we pretend it has time in it, but it's actually been stripped out, so there is no speed of light and no relative speeds of anything. If we stick to a 3D model, we run into contradictions if we reject absolute time. We can analyse a similar "paradox" where instead of using speed of travel we stick one twin deep into a gravity well for a while and then bring them back out - they will appear to have aged less due to the higher energy density down there slowing the speed of light and the rate of functionality, but the same amount of absolute time has passed for both twins. 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.
Post by: jimbobghost on 03/12/2018 23:18:58
your highly intellectual post is interrupting a meaningless, maudlin, rush of memories of some old romantics :)
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/12/2018 23:42:13
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.
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.
We achieved some clarity between our views when we established our different beliefs about time, so let’s see if we can bring more clarity:
Do you think that the universe had a beginning, and/or do you have a preferred explanation for the existence of the universe?
Note to @jimbobghost: My birthday is tomorrow, and I’ll be 75. People need to cut me some slack, lol.
Also, you seem to support the position that there is absolute time, right? Would you mind answering the question about the explanation for the existence of the universe that I asked David?
Post by: jimbobghost on 04/12/2018 01:51:52
Also, you seem to support the position that there is absolute time, right? Would you mind answering the question about the explanation for the existence of the universe that I asked David?"
Bogie,
happy birthday...you have many more years to achieve wisdom...but you are coming along well. :)
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.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 04/12/2018 02:33:33
I think he meant that those who share their sandwiches when they reach the mountain top will be rewarded with great deserts.
… 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.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/12/2018 03:56:43
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 .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 .
Post by: Colin2B on 04/12/2018 12:16:26
May you enjoy many more thinking years (and the patience to ignore life’s fools)
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 04/12/2018 12:25:49
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 .
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?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 04/12/2018 12:38:47
Happy birthday @Bogie_smilesThank you for remembering my birthday (as I pretend not to remember reminding everyone, and which I know the software does anyway, lol).
May you enjoy many more thinking years (and the patience to ignore life’s fools)
Thinking keeps the mind young and burns calories, or so I tell myself. One old age concern is to figure out how to avoid being an old fool, so I am interpreting your birthday wish to mean that there is hope in that regard for a few more years ;).
Post by: guest39538 on 04/12/2018 16:01:11
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 .
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 .
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?
Δ 0 = t
t = E
Call it a miracle if you like ........some thing from nothingness .
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 04/12/2018 18:13:34
Ok, back to the drawing board for you, lol. But wait, maybe the simplest approach is to take your suggestion. It's a miracle!
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 = t
t = E
Call it a miracle if you like ........some thing from nothingness .
Post by: David Cooper on 04/12/2018 21:19:45
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.
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.
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.]
Quote
Do you think that the universe had a beginning, and/or do you have a preferred explanation for the existence of the universe?
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.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/12/2018 22:06:12
Getting 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 .
Post by: ATMD on 06/12/2018 14:55:00
Getting 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 .
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.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/12/2018 17:10:46
Bogie’s reply to David Cooper’s reply #94
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.]David, I was going to craft a detailed, point by point reply to that paragraph, but after re-reading it, I am not certain what your personal perspective is about the details. I’ll cop out by saying that to try to maintain the perspective that there is such a thing as absolute time, you must go through gyrations of logic. 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).
Quote
You have speculated, which I applaud since it is what I like to do. The fact that you called it a guess is disrespectful to the age old act of speculating :) .
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.
Quote
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.Lol. The concept of time being infinite backwards and the resulting paradox about how we somehow got to our present “now” is an interesting thought excursion.
That excursion is the stimulus, for those of us who prefer the explanation that the universe has always existed, to also believe that time simply passes everywhere, but the rate that time is measured to pass is variable relative the energy density environment in the location of the act of measuring it.
I appreciate that you have taken the time to answer my two questions, and though your response suggests there are a variety of avenues we could explore, let me try another round of questions first.
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?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/12/2018 17:55:57
Bogie’s reply to Thebox’s post #95
If you cannot accept the simple solution that the universe has always existed, and you want to try to explain things like “before the big bang”, you will find yourself suggesting strange alternatives to “always existed”. Your “0 point pressure” is one of those.
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 .
Addressing your statement that the concept of nothingness, before the beginning, unless we can explain 0 point pressure … requires a miracle:
No miracle is necessary. There is always my favorite explanation for the existence of the universe, which is … the universe has always existed, so “something from nothing” is moot.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/12/2018 18:08:22
Bogie’s reply to ATMD’s reply #96
Totally 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.
Quote
Btw Science is not a dogma, our world views change with new findings and discoveries.Yes, well said.
Post by: jimbobghost on 06/12/2018 18:16:36
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?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/12/2018 19:06:43
Bogie’s reply to jimbobghost’s reply Reply #100
I hesitate to enter into this deep debate, since I am barely able to understand the debate itself.The premise that the universe has always existed, and that the universe, in fact, invented/created god, isn’t exactly where I am coming from. Rather than dismiss the concept of the existence of God, I would prefer the saying that:
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?
If at first there was nothing, not even God,
Then nothing could ever be.
But just look around at the many fine things,
As far as the eye can see.
So say with certainty one of two things,
It seems to make sense to proclaim:
Either God, or the Universe, has always been here,
And maybe they’re one and the same.
Post by: jimbobghost on 06/12/2018 20:31:07
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.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/12/2018 21:01:24
nice poetry...never realized you had so much soul.How are you defining soul? I support the scientific method, and it excludes the Supernatural, right?
Quote
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.If you believe that God and the Universe are one and the same, you have. But if you call the premise of the poem an acknowledgement that there is something Supernatural about the universe and God being one and the same, that is not what it means. It means that the universe is not supernatural, it is natural, and anything that seems Supernatural has natural causes that we don't yet understand.
Post by: jimbobghost on 06/12/2018 21:07:57
...or does not exist.
btw: "soul" was meant to pay tribute to the author's artistic talents (kind of like Aretha Franklyn :) )
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/12/2018 22:05:59
"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."I interpret your statement, “or does not exist”, to mean you are saying that anything that seems Supernatural has natural causes that we don't yet understand, and therefore anything Supernatural does not exist?
...or does not exist.
If so we agree. If not, please use “or does not exist” in a sentence that explains your meaning in context.
Quote
btw: "soul" was meant to pay tribute to the author's artistic talents (kind of like Aretha Franklyn :) )
Thank you, I like that comparison. I knew everyone must have a talent, just didn’t realize that was it :)
Post by: David Cooper on 06/12/2018 22:27:23
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).
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. 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. 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.
Quote
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:...
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.
Quote
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".
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.
Quote
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?
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.
Post by: jimbobghost on 07/12/2018 00:29:09
sorry Bogie,
i love speaking with you, but i don't get involved in games of this sort...you can define "supernatural" in any way you wish; but i only deal in realities.
(but keep up with your poetry...i see a future for you in the music industry; such as Iris DeMent's "Let The Mystery Be")
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 07/12/2018 00:39:37
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 07/12/2018 00:56:07
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.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?
And like you say,
Quote
“ and that isn't time that's slowing”.Agreed. That is not what I have intended to convey.
This is what I mean to say:
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).
Quote
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.We agree that the accelerated clock has measured the rate that time passes on its dial to be slowed, i.e., that the clock is functioning slower, and that equates to the twin aging slower too, on the basis that I consider the human body to be a clock measuring the rate the body is aging.
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.
I am going to continue to respond to the rest of your post because there are important points of contention in that portion too, but first I hope to get a response from you to just this limited portion. Then we can figure out the rest.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 07/12/2018 03:07:11
Well said. We agree on that too.
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.
Quote
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.Thank you for that thoughtful response. We have some minor areas of disagreement here, but not worth getting into here and now; maybe later?
Quote
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).Agreed. It is commonly stated that the gravitational waves that Einstein predicted, and that have been detected by LIGO and the ESA interferometers, are produced by objects in relative motion, i.e., accelerating relative to each other.
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.
Putting that speculation into the context of less energetic events, like an apple falling to the earth, there should be gravitational waves emitted by the apple (too small to be detected) from the perspective of the earth, and gravitational waves emitted by the Earth from the perspective of the falling apple (another problematic situation in regard to detection), so this will remain speculative until some consensus is published that clears it up.
Quote
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.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.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 07/12/2018 17:17:48
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.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.
Quote
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.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.
Post by: jimbobghost on 07/12/2018 18:09:12
Bogie, i'm afraid it must be, because I can offer no further solution, and i'm concerned I may be testing your patience.
however, if you will permit me one final question,and your potential response as a well respected member of this forum:
if you stated there was something called "atoms", and I asked you to prove it; I am sure you would do so.
if you stated there was something call a "vacuum" and I again asked you to prove it; I am once again certain you would do so.
if you, or somebody else stated there was a god, and I asked you to prove it, would/could you do so?
in the former instances, you would most likely show evidence of scientific experiments proving them to actually exist (even though I have never actually "seen" them).
in the instance of the existence of god, what would you show me as evidence of his/her/its being?...certainly not a field of posies.
forgive my ignorance, and thank you once again for your responses and patience.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 07/12/2018 18:42:15
If you believe, you have your proof in the way your life is influenced by the belief.
If you don’t believe, there is no proof that you would find irrefutable.
IMHO
Post by: jimbobghost on 07/12/2018 18:53:12
Post by: David Cooper on 07/12/2018 22:33:16
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?
There's no problem there. The problem comes in if you equate the clock's ticking to time and have time ticking at different rates one to the other.
Quote
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).
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. Time only works properly if the slower clocks are failing to measure all of the time that's actually passing for them, and time is then an absolute with the same moment everywhere and the same next moment simultaneous everywhere too. The reality is that the functionality of two clocks which record different amounts of time passing has to be coordinated by absolute time - without that, there's no mechanism to slow one clock more than the other. You can have a clock being slowed by higher energy density in its vicinity, but slowed relative to what? If you have no absolute time, how can time anywhere be slowed when there's nothing local to slow it against? And if you're slowing it in one place against another where it isn't slowed (or is slowed less [though again slowed relative to what?]), then the unslowed time is governing the slowed one and is the absolute time (or is closer to ticking tick by tick with absolute time than the other).
Quote
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's all absolutely fine until you try to attach the label "time" to it.
Quote
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.
When we're dealing with moving clocks running slow, all that complexity is superfluous - we already have a resolved mechanism for the entirety of what happens to such clocks and how it is that their functionality is slowed. Any encounters with waves which slow the clock further are the same kind of slowing that you get while stationary in the vicinity of lots of mass/energy, so they are a different category of moving and have different maths.
Quote
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.
If you have clocks slowed by anything, it is necessary for there to be an absolute time for it to be slowed relative to. Take that away and you have no way to coordinate the slowing for anything. If the factors you mention exist everywhere and you have a mathematical method for calculating how much slowing each unit of energy causes, you can calculate how fast a potential absolute time runs for zero energy. If that potential absolute time isn't absolute time either because there are further factors that cause slowing, then that doesn't eliminate absolute time, but merely pushes it further away from our ability to measure it directly, but it remains a logical necessity that it exists.
Quote
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.
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.
Quote
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.
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. The decay of orbits only becomes significant once you have really high mass concentrations, so you simply aren't getting any gravitational waves of any significance coming from anything on the Earth or out in deep space.
Quote
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.
If you put one twin near a black hole and the other not, they can compare their rates of functionality with each other and see full clear that one is ticking slower than the other. We can do this on the Earth too with highly accurate clocks on different shelves of the same lab, one low and one high. We can also use the Earth as a clock by looking at how long it takes for the same star to be at zenith, but the altitude we measure this from will produce different timings. If we time it from the bottom of a well, we think the Earth took less time to revolve once than if we time it from the top of the well.
Quote
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.
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.
Quote
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.
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.
Quote
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.
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).
Quote
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.
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).
Post by: ATMD on 08/12/2018 11:24:21
Reply #99
Bogie’s reply to ATMD’s reply #96Totally 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.
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.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/12/2018 12:18:17
Yes, but of the various alternatives, I find “always existed” the easiest to grasp, lol.
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 :)
Quote
Modern cosmology seems to indicate that our universe had a beginning, but it could have been a part of an eternal cycle.True. The observed redshift leads to an effort to back track the expansion, and sometimes I think you can get carried away with how far you can realistically carry out the back tracking.
Some say stop at the cyclical idea, and others go all the way to back track to an infinitely dense, zero volume, point space :shrug:
I started a thread a couple of years ago in the New Theories sub-forum that I called, “If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs”. It played out over a long time without much support before it died out. One point of interest was that the cyclical models were brought up and discussed. I find those models to fail, not only because they would seem to lose energy with each cycle, but because they are generally considered to be finite models. Being finite then again begs the question of a beginning, and we are back to my preferred explanation for the existence of the universe, which is that it may have “always existed” :)
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/12/2018 13:59:27
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.What you call event-meshing failures are a symptom of imposing the concept of absolute time.
What you call event-meshing, I call evidence of varying energy densities throughout the gravitational wave energy density profile space. Two different perspectives, but mine doesn’t require recalculating the natural synchronization of events to accommodate the invocation of the perspective of absolute time; a perspective that cannot exist in a universe where it is impossible for any clock to display the rate that absolute time passes. I know, you fall back on the fact that clocks, by their physical nature, are prevented from measuring absolute time, but I’m not swayed because I think my explanation for the variable rate that clocks measure time is more realistic.
Quote
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.I offered the concept that if clocks were positioned everywhere throughout the universe, then the average rate that they measured the passing of time would approximate a universal rate. You could compare each clock to that average, instead of claiming the only comparison must be to some concept of absolute time that no clock anywhere in the universe can tick at (even when we disregard the “built in” slowed functionality of all clocks).
Quote
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.There are vast stretches of deep space where your disregard for the tiny density fluctuations are certainly too insignificant to be concerned with. However, the places in my model where they become significant is within the inner workings of wave-particles, and in places where the presence of nearby massive objects affects the local gravitational wave energy density profile of the space surrounding them because of their outflowing gravitational wave energy.
Quote
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.We don’t agree on that point. To my knowledge there is no "perfect" orbit because the orbiting objects are affected by the relative difference in their proximity to other celestial objects. Celestial mechanics would certainly require energy to keep objects in perfect orbits, i.e., without perturbations.
Quote
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.I think we agree that there is a natural mechanism that slows the functionality of clocks in relative motion, and I think we agree that time doesn’t slow down or speed up as a result of that natural effect. I would define the recording of time as way we value the rate that clocks tick as displayed by the movement of their dial, as they carryout their measurement. Clocks therefore will slow down or speed up, depending on the gravitational wave energy density of their local environment.
The maths you are talking about are theory specific, as in Special Relativity Lorentz transformations, or as in the varying tensor values that come into play in GR as relative motion occurs. My model is consistent with those maths because thy are close enough to guide rockets into orbits and to permit spaceship docking, with the human visuals that are also involved, and the various tolerances :)
I agree that it is nice to be able to tell which object is in motion and which is theoretically at rest, as in the twins thought experiments, and also as in cases where two functioning clocks are separated and are experiencing different rates of acceleration, whether that acceleration is due to gravity or propellents.
Quote
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.Agreed, we do achieve high precision in the calculations, but the vagueness I was referring to was the difference between those highly precise measurements, and the impossible to measure absolute time.
Quote
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).I understand that if there was an absolute time, it would be ticking faster than the universal average that I defined. My point is that there is no place in the universe where your absolute time is actually occurring, and so my definition of a universal average rate of time passing is conceptually superior to an “impossible” absolute rate of time passing, IMHO.
Quote
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).I’m ready to drop the discussion of a conceptual absolute time that cannot exist in the universe as we know it.
However, I am interested in discussing the concept of absolute space.
For starters, can you give me a coordinate system that would be useful in finding our way around absolute space? Let’s assume we start at an arbitrary location somewhere in space, travel from that location for any period of time, and wish to return back to the exact point that our journey originated.
Post by: jimbobghost on 08/12/2018 15:20:40
leave a trail of bread crumbs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/12/2018 15:55:13
Post by: ATMD on 08/12/2018 19:59:09
Yes, but of the various alternatives, I find “always existed” the easiest to grasp, lol.
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 :)QuoteModern cosmology seems to indicate that our universe had a beginning, but it could have been a part of an eternal cycle.True. The observed redshift leads to an effort to back track the expansion, and sometimes I think you can get carried away with how far you can realistically carry out the back tracking.
Some say stop at the cyclical idea, and others go all the way to back track to an infinitely dense, zero volume, point space :shrug:
I started a thread a couple of years ago in the New Theories sub-forum that I called, “If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs”. It played out over a long time without much support before it died out. One point of interest was that the cyclical models were brought up and discussed. I find those models to fail, not only because they would seem to lose energy with each cycle, but because they are generally considered to be finite models. Being finite then again begs the question of a beginning, and we are back to my preferred explanation for the existence of the universe, which is that it may have “always existed” :)
A model of the universe where the universe has always existed and is infinite :)
This model makes the universe the same as "God" in theology.
Post by: David Cooper on 08/12/2018 20:34:39
What you call event-meshing failures are a symptom of imposing the concept of absolute time.
Not so - if you're going to have time at all (with running events rather than a static block in which all change is mere illusion) then you will automatically run into these event-meshing failures if you have time run at different rates for different things - this reveals the necessity of absolute time rather than having absolute time as a starting point. Anyone who tries to produce a mechanistic description of reality will run into this issue if they take it far enough. Writing a working simulation is impossible to do without encountering the problem, and building a real universe would lead to the same discovery. Those who do write simulations of models that lack absolute time have no option other than to sneak absolute time in in order to coordinate the action properly, but they then typically cheat by not declaring that this is part of the mechanism they're using - they assert that it works without absolute time, but if they strip out the hidden absolute time from the model, the model breaks. This happens in every single case without exception.
Quote
What you call event-meshing, I call evidence of varying energy densities throughout the gravitational wave energy density profile space. Two different perspectives, but mine doesn’t require recalculating the natural synchronization of events to accommodate the invocation of the perspective of absolute time; a perspective that cannot exist in a universe where it is impossible for any clock to display the rate that absolute time passes. I know, you fall back on the fact that clocks, by their physical nature, are prevented from measuring absolute time, but I’m not swayed because I think my explanation for the variable rate that clocks measure time is more realistic.
You still don't appear to understand the problem. If I was to simulate your model, how am I going to have it run through the events it simulates? (Or, if I was going to build your universe, how would I have it run through the events that it accommodates?) If we separate clocks A and B to put clock A into an area of higher energy density than clock B for a while and then reunite them, we find that clock A has recorded less time while they were apart. We can do this ten times in an identical way and each time the time difference between the clocks while they're separated will be the same - it is a systematic difference. If we put clock A into a place with an even higher energy density, it will lead to a greater difference in the times recorded for the two clocks, but again it's all coordinated in a precise way by a mechanism which makes the results fully predictable. What does that mechanism require for the coordination to work? If there is no connection between the two locations, how is clock A going to run slower than clock B? Why can't it run faster than clock B instead - it isn't going to know how fast clock B is ticking, so how can it know to go slower than clock B? How does the space with a higher energy density know to make clock A run slower than it would run if there was less energy density there? What governs the speed of functionality of the space with high energy density in it? We have to look for the governor. If we don't have one, we don't have coordination and it just becomes random - there's no reason why the clocks shouldn't just go on running in sync or with a random, fluctuating synchronisation leading to wildly different results every time we run the experiment. What makes clock A run slow at a precise rate relative to clock B? What makes the space with the higher energy density slow clock A down to that precise rate? These are not questions that can be ignored if you're writing a simulation or building a real universe. You need to specify a potentially-complete mechanism, and without absolute time, you don't have that so your model is incomplete and won't function properly.
Quote
I offered the concept that if clocks were positioned everywhere throughout the universe, then the average rate that they measured the passing of time would approximate a universal rate. You could compare each clock to that average, instead of claiming the only comparison must be to some concept of absolute time that no clock anywhere in the universe can tick at (even when we disregard the “built in” slowed functionality of all clocks).
That's a mighty complicated mechanism for coordinating the ticking rates of clocks if you have to consult a gazillion clocks and average their ticking rates before working out how long it should be before the next tick of each of them. The rational way to do things is to have time run at the maximum possible rate everywhere as that gives you automatic coordination without any comparisons being needed to maintain sync. Local factors then slow the functionality of material and clocks, but without slowing time. When you have a high energy density in a location, that serves as a medium to slow the speed of light, and that's what slows clocks - light has to interact with the medium, and that's what slows it, but its actual functionality is unslowed because it just has more work to do in addition to moving (just like the difference between walking through an empty room and having to push your way through a crowded room (whether politely or impolitely) - it isn't your time slowing down that makes it take longer).
Quote
There are vast stretches of deep space where your disregard for the tiny density fluctuations are certainly too insignificant to be concerned with. However, the places in my model where they become significant is within the inner workings of wave-particles, and in places where the presence of nearby massive objects affects the local gravitational wave energy density profile of the space surrounding them because of their outflowing gravitational wave energy.
In which case, you need to be careful not to bring that into play in discussions of the standard twins paradox experiment in deep space where it has no relevance. In such cases, we only need to consider the role of the movement through space in slowing clocks down.
Quote
Quote4) 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.We don’t agree on that point. To my knowledge there is no "perfect" orbit because the orbiting objects are affected by the relative difference in their proximity to other celestial objects. Celestial mechanics would certainly require energy to keep objects in perfect orbits, i.e., without perturbations.
But do you agree that energy doesn't appear by magic to travel away as gravitational waves? The lack of perfect orbits isn't important - hardly any energy is lost from orbiting planets in the form of gravitational waves - it is an infinitesimal amount of their movement energy that is lost in this way, so you need to be careful not to exaggerate the scale of the potential role of such waves. With black hole and neutron star mergers we have extremely rapid orbit decay taking place in the latter stages, and that's where the gravitational waves momentarily become significant for things far away.
Quote
I think we agree that there is a natural mechanism that slows the functionality of clocks in relative motion, and I think we agree that time doesn’t slow down or speed up as a result of that natural effect. I would define the recording of time as way we value the rate that clocks tick as displayed by the movement of their dial, as they carryout their measurement. Clocks therefore will slow down or speed up, depending on the gravitational wave energy density of their local environment.
If you put a block of glass into a light clock, it ticks more slowly due to the light taking longer to pass through the glass, but time has not slowed down - the light just has more work to do to get where it's going and that work takes time. High energy density is a medium too, slowing light down and making everything function more slowly. The clock is not recording all the time that has actually passed - it is having to do more work than a clock in a low energy density environment, but it fails to record the time that it takes to do that extra work.
Quote
The maths you are talking about are theory specific, as in Special Relativity Lorentz transformations, or as in the varying tensor values that come into play in GR as relative motion occurs. My model is consistent with those maths because thy are close enough to guide rockets into orbits and to permit spaceship docking, with the human visuals that are also involved, and the various tolerances :)
The maths is universe-specific. All viable theories have to conform to it.
Quote
Agreed, we do achieve high precision in the calculations, but the vagueness I was referring to was the difference between those highly precise measurements, and the impossible to measure absolute time.
All the clock speeds are precise in relation to the fastest possible clock that the universe can hold. That clock may be ticking slower than absolute time too, but again it will be a precise amount slower - being impossible for us to access doesn't make it vague. It may be ticking a quintillion times more slowly than an absolute time outside of the universe, but it is doing something precise.
Quote
I understand that if there was an absolute time, it would be ticking faster than the universal average that I defined. My point is that there is no place in the universe where your absolute time is actually occurring, and so my definition of a universal average rate of time passing is conceptually superior to an “impossible” absolute rate of time passing, IMHO.
No - there is no place in the universe where a clock is ticking at the same rate as absolute time, but that doesn't mean that absolute time isn't running everywhere at full speed. When we put a block of glass into a light clock, the faster time that governs the action is still fully in charge of how long it takes for the light to cross from mirror to mirror and how long it takes to interact with the medium that it's having to fight its way through.
Quote
For starters, can you give me a coordinate system that would be useful in finding our way around absolute space? Let’s assume we start at an arbitrary location somewhere in space, travel from that location for any period of time, and wish to return back to the exact point that our journey originated.
When I was referring to absolute space, I was thinking in terms of there being one frame of reference which is stationary relative to that space while all others are moving relative to it. There may be no such frame in the universe though (because our three space dimensions could be wrapped up within the surface of an expanding sphere of four dimensions), so such an absolute space would be external to the universe. However, for short trips in space you can do everything you need to using standard Cartesian geometry with everything behaving as if you are dealing with absolute space, and if you aren't, the action will simply run slower while be timed as if it's unslowed.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/12/2018 20:55:26
I like the "all inclusive" nature of the ISU model :)
A model of the universe where the universe has always existed and is infinite :)
This model makes the universe the same as "God" in theology.
Post by: ATMD on 08/12/2018 21:12:44
I like the "all inclusive" nature of the ISU model :)
A model of the universe where the universe has always existed and is infinite :)
This model makes the universe the same as "God" in theology.
I like it too :)
Post by: guest39538 on 08/12/2018 21:14:14
Yes , in an infinite universe that always existed , ''creation'' is an explanation of ''itself'' . God would be infinite and equal to the Universe . No thing can exist beyond infinite because infinite has no boundary .I like the "all inclusive" nature of the ISU model :)
A model of the universe where the universe has always existed and is infinite :)
This model makes the universe the same as "God" in theology.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/12/2018 21:21:23
Not so - if you're going to have time at all (with running events rather than a static block in which all change is mere illusion) then you will automatically run into these event-meshing failures if you have time run at different rates for different things - this reveals the necessity of absolute time rather than having absolute time as a starting point. Anyone who tries to produce a mechanistic description of reality will run into this issue if they take it far enough. Writing a working simulation is impossible to do without encountering the problem, and building a real universe would lead to the same discovery. Those who do write simulations of models that lack absolute time have no option other than to sneak absolute time in in order to coordinate the action properly, but they then typically cheat by not declaring that this is part of the mechanism they're using - they assert that it works without absolute time, but if they strip out the hidden absolute time from the model, the model breaks. This happens in every single case without exception.
You still don't appear to understand the problem. If I was to simulate your model, how am I going to have it run through the events it simulates? (Or, if I was going to build your universe, how would I have it run through the events that it accommodates?) If we separate clocks A and B to put clock A into an area of higher energy density than clock B for a while and then reunite them, we find that clock A has recorded less time while they were apart. We can do this ten times in an identical way and each time the time difference between the clocks while they're separated will be the same - it is a systematic difference. If we put clock A into a place with an even higher energy density, it will lead to a greater difference in the times recorded for the two clocks, but again it's all coordinated in a precise way by a mechanism which makes the results fully predictable. What does that mechanism require for the coordination to work? If there is no connection between the two locations, how is clock A going to run slower than clock B? Why can't it run faster than clock B instead - it isn't going to know how fast clock B is ticking, so how can it know to go slower than clock B? How does the space with a higher energy density know to make clock A run slower than it would run if there was less energy density there? What governs the speed of functionality of the space with high energy density in it? We have to look for the governor. If we don't have one, we don't have coordination and it just becomes random - there's no reason why the clocks shouldn't just go on running in sync or with a random, fluctuating synchronisation leading to wildly different results every time we run the experiment. What makes clock A run slow at a precise rate relative to clock B? What makes the space with the higher energy density slow clock A down to that precise rate? These are not questions that can be ignored if you're writing a simulation or building a real universe. You need to specify a potentially-complete mechanism, and without absolute time, you don't have that so your model is incomplete and won't function properly.
That's a mighty complicated mechanism for coordinating the ticking rates of clocks if you have to consult a gazillion clocks and average their ticking rates before working out how long it should be before the next tick of each of them. The rational way to do things is to have time run at the maximum possible rate everywhere as that gives you automatic coordination without any comparisons being needed to maintain sync. Local factors then slow the functionality of material and clocks, but without slowing time. When you have a high energy density in a location, that serves as a medium to slow the speed of light, and that's what slows clocks - light has to interact with the medium, and that's what slows it, but its actual functionality is unslowed because it just has more work to do in addition to moving (just like the difference between walking through an empty room and having to push your way through a crowded room (whether politely or impolitely) - it isn't your time slowing down that makes it take longer).
In which case, you need to be careful not to bring that into play in discussions of the standard twins paradox experiment in deep space where it has no relevance. In such cases, we only need to consider the role of the movement through space in slowing clocks down.
But do you agree that energy doesn't appear by magic to travel away as gravitational waves? The lack of perfect orbits isn't important - hardly any energy is lost from orbiting planets in the form of gravitational waves - it is an infinitesimal amount of their movement energy that is lost in this way, so you need to be careful not to exaggerate the scale of the potential role of such waves. With black hole and neutron star mergers we have extremely rapid orbit decay taking place in the latter stages, and that's where the gravitational waves momentarily become significant for things far away.
If you put a block of glass into a light clock, it ticks more slowly due to the light taking longer to pass through the glass, but time has not slowed down - the light just has more work to do to get where it's going and that work takes time. High energy density is a medium too, slowing light down and making everything function more slowly. The clock is not recording all the time that has actually passed - it is having to do more work than a clock in a low energy density environment, but it fails to record the time that it takes to do that extra work.
The maths is universe-specific. All viable theories have to conform to it.
All the clock speeds are precise in relation to the fastest possible clock that the universe can hold. That clock may be ticking slower than absolute time too, but again it will be a precise amount slower - being impossible for us to access doesn't make it vague. It may be ticking a quintillion times more slowly than an absolute time outside of the universe, but it is doing something precise.
No - there is no place in the universe where a clock is ticking at the same rate as absolute time, but that doesn't mean that absolute time isn't running everywhere at full speed. When we put a block of glass into a light clock, the faster time that governs the action is still fully in charge of how long it takes for the light to cross from mirror to mirror and how long it takes to interact with the medium that it's having to fight its way through.
When I was referring to absolute space, I was thinking in terms of there being one frame of reference which is stationary relative to that space while all others are moving relative to it. There may be no such frame in the universe though (because our three space dimensions could be wrapped up within the surface of an expanding sphere of four dimensions), so such an absolute space would be external to the universe. However, for short trips in space you can do everything you need to using standard Cartesian geometry with everything behaving as if you are dealing with absolute space, and if you aren't, the action will simply run slower while be timed as if it's unslowed.
Sadly, I am missing the opportunity of grasping your absolute time universe, and you can probably count yourself lucky to be missing out on enjoying my ISU, lol, with its universal gravitational wave energy density profile of space. It is that density profile that governs the rate that clocks individually measure the rate of that thing we call time. The clocks measure time passing by recording a variable number of ticks, relative to the gravitational wave energy density profile of the local space where they are counting their ticks.
I am going to go back and carefully read the details of your last post, and if I start to see the light, I’ll post some follow up questions.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/12/2018 21:23:50
Then I will consider that an acknowledgement that, to the extent you find it agreeable, you are in.
I like it too :)
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/12/2018 21:28:46
Yes , in an infinite universe that always existed , ''creation'' is an explanation of ''itself'' . God would be infinite and equal to the Universe . No thing can exist beyond infinite because infinite has no boundary .
I'll accept that wisdom without questioning it, until I have time to evaluate it against the philosophy that I derive from my ISU model. FYI, I do call that philosophy by the name of Eternal Intent, :) , which I have described here at TNS in a couple of threads.
I'll look it up and post a link to it.
Post by: guest39538 on 08/12/2018 21:54:49
Yes please provide a link , would like to read your wisdom . I will read it later though .
Yes , in an infinite universe that always existed , ''creation'' is an explanation of ''itself'' . God would be infinite and equal to the Universe . No thing can exist beyond infinite because infinite has no boundary .
I'll accept that wisdom without questioning it, until I have time to evaluate it against the philosophy that I derive from my ISU model. FYI, I do call that philosophy by the name of Eternal Intent, :) , which I have described here at TNS in a couple of threads.
I'll look it up and post a link to it.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/12/2018 22:06:16
Here it is. Feel free to comment:Yes please provide a link , would like to read your wisdom . I will read it later though .
Yes , in an infinite universe that always existed , ''creation'' is an explanation of ''itself'' . God would be infinite and equal to the Universe . No thing can exist beyond infinite because infinite has no boundary .
I'll accept that wisdom without questioning it, until I have time to evaluate it against the philosophy that I derive from my ISU model. FYI, I do call that philosophy by the name of Eternal Intent, :) , which I have described here at TNS in a couple of threads.
I'll look it up and post a link to it.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg524158#msg524158 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg524158#msg524158)
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/12/2018 01:50:30
Over the years, since I wrote the essay on the philosophy of the ISU, I have continually been evolving the ISU model that it is based on. It seemed to me, during that time, that it would be appropriate for the ISU philosophy to evolve right along with the speculative physics and cosmological content that makes up the ISU model, but so far I have always decided not to revise it.
It has easily been read by hundreds of layman science enthusiasts in various on-line forums over the years, and yet it remains as originally written. I guess the reasons it stays the same are that I have not received any complaints for posting it, criticisms about its content, or arguments against its conclusions; though on balance, there hasn’t been any outpouring of support or enthusiasm either, lol.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/12/2018 09:33:03
I hear crickets, as usual, in response to posting the Eternal Intent essay, lol.
I like your model as you know , it is better than most of the science I have read before . Take pride in that you are a scientist , although you may never achieve recognition , that's the science arrogance for you .
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/12/2018 12:16:37
I may be dabbling in science but I don't have any credentials to speak of, and so I may know a little, but it is really just enough to get my self in hot water around real scientists. So I don't pretend to be doing science, but instead, I follow science and intentionally go into speculation mode, which leads to speculation upon speculation, far beyond where real scientists know where stop, lol.
Post by: jimbobghost on 10/12/2018 17:42:12
"Besides that, lol."
I follow your writings, but seldom feel confident to add anything of value.
altho you rejected my suggestion of tracking outer space logistics via the use of bread crums, i have not given up.
i am currently exporing the use of highway flares, positioned at specific coordinates within solar systems. the remaining problem deals with the means of transport. since the distances are considerable, i am currently designing a warp drive, that may resolve the issue.
p.s. : do not allow any lack of scientific knowledge concern you. you obviously can stand up to any with degrees they might display to demonstrate their accomplishment in university studies. as you might suspect, i myself have little formal education in science, but i do not let that stand in my way of creative thinking.
Post by: ATMD on 10/12/2018 18:59:50
Bogie,
"Besides that, lol."
I follow your writings, but seldom feel confident to add anything of value.
altho you rejected my suggestion of tracking outer space logistics via the use of bread crums, i have not given up.
i am currently exporing the use of highway flares, positioned at specific coordinates within solar systems. the remaining problem deals with the means of transport. since the distances are considerable, i am currently designing a warp drive, that may resolve the issue.
p.s. : do not allow any lack of scientific knowledge concern you. you obviously can stand up to any with degrees they might display to demonstrate their accomplishment in university studies. as you might suspect, i myself have little formal education in science, but i do not let that stand in my way of creative thinking.
and take up comedy
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/12/2018 19:19:04
Sometimes I find that when I add something fairly insignificant, which I do from time to time :) , it opens the discussion up to draw out better ideas, either on the part of the OP, or it sparks useful comments from members who might otherwise be hesitant to post at all. I think people come to science forums, not only to get answers from the moderators and experts, but to get a view of some typical discussions that go on among layman level members.
I follow your writings, but seldom feel confident to add anything of value.
Quote
altho you rejected my suggestion of tracking outer space logistics via the use of bread crumbs, i have not given up.Maybe I was going to steal the idea and use it elsewhere; you don’t know for sure.
Quote
i am currently exploring the use of highway flares, positioned at specific coordinates within solar systems. the remaining problem deals with the means of transport. since the distances are considerable, i am currently designing a warp drive, that may resolve the issue.Interesting that you use the phrase “Warp Drive”. It brings up a topic that came to my mind last night while reading up on an old topic in a book by Paul Davies, “About Time, Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution” (1995). I was reading a paragraph referring to the curvature of spacetime in GR as the result of the presence of mass, i.e., the warping of space, that I wondered if that theoretical effect wasn’t the origin of the use of the word “warp” in the Warp Drive that became popular in science fiction. What do you think?
Quote
p.s. : do not allow any lack of scientific knowledge concern you. you obviously can stand up to any with degrees they might display to demonstrate their accomplishment in university studies. as you might suspect, i myself have little formal education in science, but i do not let that stand in my way of creative thinking.Exactly! Though this is a very high level science forum, considering the talent that is behind it, they do make us layman feel comfortable in their hands off approach in the non-hard science forums. Also, I’ve said it before, but the ability to post and host images, which I take full advantage of, is a very big deal, and in addition to that, the fact that you have unlimited access to go back and edit/modify your posts.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/12/2018 19:25:55
As you can see, some of us don't need much encouragement to go for comedy.
and take up comedy
Post by: jimbobghost on 10/12/2018 21:26:48
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 11/12/2018 14:22:36
Often though, my tries to be funny are me saying that I shouldn’t be taken too seriously. And that goes with the territory of being a compulsive layman science enthusiast posting in a reputable science forum like TNS. Thank you for reading my musings.
For example, why is dark energy such a mystery, given the Big Bang version of cosmology? After all, who doesn’t come up with a picture of the Big Bang as being a hot dense ball of energy, expanding out of a big bang event, during which exotic particles would form in the earliest moments? It seems obvious, given such an event, that rapid expansion would lead to rapid cooling, the earliest exotic particles would decay into a natural set of fundamental particles, filling the expanding volume of the big bang connected arena wave, and spreading in space as the wave encompasses more and more volume.
So isn’t it logical that as those fundamental particles, forming in an expanding, cooling wave energy environment, would have “separation momentum” relative to each other, imparted to them as they form? Wouldn’t they generally be moving away from each other as the volume of local space occupied by the expanding arena increases?
Sure, there is gravity in play. I have to believe that with the formation of particles, that the force of gravity is a natural consequence, and I expound on all of that in my threads, but this post is about comedy, compulsion and cosmology, lol. I’m heading for my layman science enthusiast’s alternative explanation for dark energy by asking the question, “Why is dark energy such a mystery”?.
1) We have a Big Bang event that features the rapid expansion of dense-state energy; a hot dense ball of energy in the form of a plasma wave.
2) We have initial, very massive exotic particles that formed during the rapid expansion and cooling of the dense-state energy, as the plasma wave breaks down.
3) We have the fundamental particles that form from the decay of those very massive exotic particles, and fill the young, expanding arena wave with the fundamental particles that are the building blocks of atoms and molecules.
4) We have separation momentum imparted to fundamental particles that causes them to be moving away from each other at the instant that they form.
5) We have the simultaneous advent of the force of gravity as the particles come into existence, and that sets up the interplay of the opposing forces of gravity and separation momentum.
6) In close quarters, the particles clump, form atoms, and the atoms are moving away from each other as the expansion and cooling continues.
7) We have the force of gravity at work to cause the atoms to clump and form huge hydrogen stars, which also conserve the separation momentum of the particles from which they formed, and so the huge first round stars are separating from each other as well.
8 ) The arena wave is filled with the first round of giant hydrogen stars which burn rapidly, go to supernovas all across the arena, filling the arena with dust clouds composed of heavy nuclei, atoms, and fundamental particles.
9) A second round of more stable stars form, which also display the conserved initial separation momentum that was imparted to the earliest particles, while the force of gravity is beginning to meaningfully impose itself as it causes the second round of stars to clump into the cosmic structures that we observe today. What we observe is that the galaxies and galactic structure are moving apart at an accelerating rate as the arena wave continues to expand, meaning that separation momentum is still winning out over gravity.
10) We attribute that observed separation of galaxies to a mysterious dark energy, but why not see it in the context of these ten steps in the natural progress of a big bang event, explaining why it shouldn’t be thought of as such a mystery?
Hoping for some comments on this scenario, lol.
Post by: ATMD on 11/12/2018 16:07:33
Because it keeps us in the dark.
Post by: jimbobghost on 11/12/2018 16:32:56
Post by: ATMD on 11/12/2018 16:59:01
bada boom!
Lol
I am trying Jimbobghost, but you are a natural. Humor seamlessly flows in your discussion, it is like you are talking with your tongue permanently in your cheek.
You broke my sarcasm meter btw, now I can't tell whether you are serious hahaha
Post by: jimbobghost on 11/12/2018 18:13:21
Post by: ATMD on 11/12/2018 18:33:09
in humor, there is pathos.
Not sure if serious...
Post by: jimbobghost on 11/12/2018 18:55:29
I left my previous favorite forum when some members attacked my comments in a depression thread; accusing me of not being sincere, due to my posts in other threads, which I meant to be humorous.
be wary of those that do not understand sarcasm.
Post by: ATMD on 11/12/2018 19:06:24
I never kid about mental health.
I left my previous favorite forum when some members attacked my comments in a depression thread; accusing me of not being sincere, due to my posts in other threads, which I meant to be humorous.
be wary of those that do not understand sarcasm.
Don't worry Jimbobghost, don't let my broken sarcasm meter affect your day. I hope you are having a great day at the moment. May your humor continue to shine through.
We all go through testing times. It's not how many times you get knocked down that count, it's how many times you get back up.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 11/12/2018 19:17:54
Like me, right now. Testing times …
Don't worry Jimbobghost, don't let my broken sarcasm meter affect your day. I hope you are having a great day at the moment. May your humor continue to shine through.
We all go through testing times.
I expect to get some response like, Gee Bogie, you really nailed that Dark Energy post. You should use that when you explain Dark Matter …
Oh wait, I was going to move on to dark matter, but how can I now? How can I get over the shame of a bunch of jokes and humor after I pour my heart out on dark energy? How? HOW?
ATMD, I hope this helps you reclabrate you sarcasm meter, lol.
[/humor]
Post by: ATMD on 11/12/2018 19:34:33
Like me, right now. Testing times …
Don't worry Jimbobghost, don't let my broken sarcasm meter affect your day. I hope you are having a great day at the moment. May your humor continue to shine through.
We all go through testing times.
I expect to get some response like, Gee Bogie, you really nailed that Dark Energy post. You should use that when you explain Dark Matter …
Oh wait, I was going to move on to dark matter, but how can I now? How can I get over the shame of a bunch of jokes and humor after I pour my heart out on dark energy? How? HOW?
ATMD, I hope this helps you reclabrate you sarcasm meter, lol.
[/humor]
I am sorry Bogie, you are right, I need to recalibrate my sarcasm meter, from my point of view, I didn't see any sarcasm in your post, only a perfect explanation of dark energy in succinct, non-technical language that even science laymen like me could understand.
For Jimbobghost, I only saw sarcasm in his posts even though he pointed out to me that they were sincere.
I am a newbie, please forgive me.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 11/12/2018 19:42:57
I am sorry Bogie, you are right, I need to recalibrate my sarcasm meter, from my point of view, I didn't see any sarcasm in your post, only a perfect explanation of dark energy in succinct, non-technical language that even science laymen like me could understand.
For Jimbobghost, I only saw sarcasm in his posts even though he pointed out to me that they were sincere.
I am a newbie, please forgive me.
Lol, I think you are a natural.
Post by: ATMD on 11/12/2018 20:02:54
I am sorry Bogie, you are right, I need to recalibrate my sarcasm meter, from my point of view, I didn't see any sarcasm in your post, only a perfect explanation of dark energy in succinct, non-technical language that even science laymen like me could understand.
For Jimbobghost, I only saw sarcasm in his posts even though he pointed out to me that they were sincere.
I am a newbie, please forgive me.
Lol, I think you are a natural.
I blame it on my karma
Post by: jimbobghost on 11/12/2018 20:05:16
ATMD, I hope this helps you reclabrate you sarcasm meter, lol.
[/humor]
Bogie,
glad you ended your post with the above...as I read it from the beginning, you were starting to worry me :)
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 11/12/2018 20:51:55
Darn, I better use that [/humor] thing again.
How about you tell me why you are frequenting a science forum (of all places, lol)?
Post by: jimbobghost on 11/12/2018 21:02:53
Post by: ATMD on 11/12/2018 21:13:36
My name is Bogie_smiles, and I warned people not to take me too seriously; But I demand respect ...
Darn, I better use that [/humor] thing again.
How about you tell me why you are frequenting a science forum (of all places, lol)?
Lol
I think that scientists are intelligent people, maybe some of the knowledge could rub off on me.
I expect to get some response like, Gee Bogie, you really nailed that Dark Energy post. You should use that when you explain Dark Matter …
I called you Bogie because you called yourself Bogie.
If I just said your name "Bogie" and smile every time, would that count? I can save a few letters of typing :)
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 11/12/2018 21:21:32
Post by: ATMD on 11/12/2018 21:30:06
I am Bogie ... well, not all that Bogie. The smiles part is what I do, beside my compulsive speculative interests (and I am serious about that).
Smiling is what I do too, i hope there is no monopoly on smiling, in fact I like giving the full teeth expression ;D
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 11/12/2018 21:38:25
Post by: ATMD on 11/12/2018 21:43:36
Ok, I'm adding u to my buddy list until you stop smiling.
Smiling helps me through everything. Sometimes it is very hard to smile, but it makes me relish the times it is easy to smile, like right now :D
I don't have a buddy list, but I have no use for a buddy list, it is always open.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 11/12/2018 22:04:19
Post by: David Cooper on 12/12/2018 18:42:49
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/12/2018 01:35:13
The word "bogie" has its origin in ...You've been Googling again, lol.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/12/2018 06:08:52
No problem imagining that someone might have thought, “Gee Bogie, you really nailed that Dark Energy post. You should use that when you explain Dark Matter …”.To which I would say:
In the ISU model, the explanation of dark energy is an easy scenario, compared to the explanation of dark matter. But I’ll try to do it in about 1000 words; but don’t start counting until after we define dark matter:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/dark-matter (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/dark-matter)
Let’s use the above link as an OK source for the definition of dark matter. Here is the gist of the definitions:
- Matter that emits little or no detectable radiation. Gravitational forces observed on many astronomical objects suggest the significant presence of such matter in the universe, accounting for approximately 23 percent of the total mass and energy of the universe. Its exact nature is not well understood, but it may be largely composed of varieties of subatomic particles that have not yet been discovered, as well as the mass of black holes and of stars too dim to observe. Also called missing mass.
- A Closer Look: What is the universe made of? We know that galaxies consist of planets, stars, and huge gas and dust clouds-all of these objects are observable by the radiation they give off, such as radio, infrared, optical, ultraviolet, x-ray, or gamma-ray radiation, and all can be observed using various kinds of telescopes. But there are reasons to suspect the existence of far more matter than this, matter that is not directly observable. Evidence for such dark matter comes from observations of certain gravitational effects. For example, astronomers have found that galaxies rotate much faster than they would be expected to rotate based solely on their observable mass-in fact, they should be flying apart. One explanation for this apparent anomaly is to assume that the galaxies have much more mass than we can see, and this invisible mass holds them together gravitationally. Various theories of the composition of this invisible dark matter have been proposed, from exotic yet-to-be discovered particles to planet-sized objects made of ordinary matter that are too small or far away to be detected by present-day instruments. But none of these theories are entirely satisfactory, and the fundamental question of what makes up most of the universe remains unanswered.
What they say is that there is not yet a generally accepted explanation for the observed “dark matter” defined above.
To introduce dark matter from the perspective of the ISU:
Another ISU poem (Maybe I’ll call it, “Bohemian Cosmology), using something borrowed, and something new:
The borrowed parts are in Bold
Is this the real life? https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/queen/bohemianrhapsody.html (https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/queen/bohemianrhapsody.html)
Is this just fantasy?
Does Bogie spend his whole life,
Bemused by his cosmology :)
Caught in a landslide,
No escape from reality.
From Places that you dare not hide,
To places that you cannot see.
Open your eyes,
You’ll see an in’fin’i’ty.
Look up to the skies and see,
Wave energy is … (wait for it) …spun’ gee!
Ok, not golden globes material I guess, so let’s move on to some key words in the ISU dark matter scenario:
Infinite, Eternal, Universe, Wave-energy, Quantized, Massive, Gravitational, Directional, Source, Imbalanced, Spongy, Convergences, Hints of Mass
1) The Infinite Spongy Universe consists of an infinite and eternal, multiple big bang arena action landscape.
2) The universe has always existed, and on a grand scale, is essentially the same now as it has always been and will always be.
3) Space is infinite, and is filled with an infinite amount of wave-energy.
4) Light waves and gravitational waves carry energy directionally through space, direct from the source, to every spherical point within the infinite reach of gravity (barring natural interruptions).
5) Light waves, i.e., electromagnetic radiation, is wave-energy emitted by photons at frequencies that range across the electromagnetic spectrum (photons have mass in the ISU).
6) Gravitational radiation, is wave-energy emitted by all occurrences of mass, including wave-particles, objects composed of wave-particles, and all sub-quantum convergences of wave-energy that intersect/overlap in open space (Those open-space convergences, called momentary high energy density spots, aka hints of mass, are the dark matter).
7) Each wave convergence, regardless of size (and they range from the tiniest wave convergences in the oscillating background of space, to the big bang arenas waves that play out across the landscape of the greater universe), has a momentary mass effect (some moments are longer than others, lol).
8 ) Gravitational waves are coming and going, to and from all directions, everywhere in space, giving each point in space a net energy value equal to the sum of all energy carried to that spot by waves that converge at that point. Therefore, the energy value at each point in space varies in intensity, depending on the directional distribution of the distant massive source objects that are emitting the gravitational waves that are converging at that point.
9) It is important to emphasize that there is a directional aspect to the inflowing gravitational waves that arrive at each point in space. That directional inflow of wave-energy that is arriving at every point in space, points to a distant massive source from which the wave energy originated.
10) It is just as important to note that there is a net directional imbalance to the inflowing gravitational wave-energy arriving at each point in space. That net directional imbalance points toward the net highest directional source of gravitational wave-energy arriving at that point from all distant sources.
11) With those things being said, in the ISU model, mass is quantized, and the presence of mass is represented by the number of quanta contained in the particles that make up the massive objects.
12) The wave-energy content of each of those quanta is continually being refreshed. There is a continual spherical out flow of gravitational wave-energy from fundamental particles generated by the jointly pulsing action of the mass of quanta that the particle is composed of, and jointly, that the object is made up of; pulses are out flowing spherical waves, and the energy emitted must be replaced from the energy arriving from all directions from the gravitational wave-energy density profile of space.
13) Quanta are simply the high energy density spots that make the momentary convergences of the directionally inflowing gravitational waves, and the value of the energy that qualifies as local convergence to be a quantum of energy is governed by the exchange rate between the out flowing and inflowing gravitational wave-energy of the size required to be utilized by the wave structure at the surface of the wave-particle or object (I am willing to offer a few thousand more words to clarify that point, upon request) (I feel safe that I won’t be called upon to do that).
14) Space is filled with these convergences, both as quanta within objects with mass, and convergences occurring in the space surrounding all massive objects, whether in the vicinity of a massive object or at a distance, and there is no limit to the distance that a convergence can be separated from the massive object in question, because the out flowing wave energy has an infinite reach through space.
15) Dark matter consists of the wave-energy convergences popping in and out of existence, that each have a hint of mass. They are frequent occurrences, virtual particles, everywhere in space. The local density of the convergences that make up what is referred to as dark matter varies, relative to the net value of the energy making up the mass at all different distances from the point in question, because each convergence has sources from all directions, at various distances, and the relative intensity of the waves from those sources is variable.
Post by: ATMD on 13/12/2018 08:40:02
Post by: ATMD on 13/12/2018 08:45:57
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/12/2018 12:55:11
Did you recognize the Freddy Mercury lyrics? I’m calling the new ISU poem, “Bohemian Cosmology”. I like the bohemian nature of the ISU.
Post by: ATMD on 13/12/2018 13:21:40
@ATMD, It was under 1000 words, and lots of them were used multiple times. Give me an example of something difficult in the dark matter scenario. Waves carrying energy converge in space, form "spots" of energy density that have a hint of mass, and all of those tiny hints of mass add up to cause the "missing mass" effect attributed to some mysterious dark matter. What could be easier? I'm smiling when I say that, lol.
Did you recognize the Freddy Mercury lyrics? I’m calling the new ISU poem, “Bohemian Cosmology”. I like the bohemian nature of the ISU.
Hahaha :D
I tried to understand the dark energy explanation believe me, you totally fused those Freddie Mercury lyrics with some Bogie poem, that was brilliant, great job! Are you sure you're not a scientist and a poet ?
Looking forward to some more of your poems, not so much on the dark energy theory, that part went right over my head whooooosh!
I promise you I will give it another shot, let my head rest a bit :)
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/12/2018 13:28:58
Post by: ATMD on 13/12/2018 13:39:27
If you like Bohemian Cosmology, there is still some hope for you in the ISU!
I have to try, don't hog all the intelligence, I need some too, I could use it to impress the chicks lol
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/12/2018 13:49:38
Now you tell me.If you like Bohemian Cosmology, there is still some hope for you in the ISU!
I have to try, don't hog all the intelligence, I need some too, I could use it to impress the chicks lol
You are welcome to anything you can pick up from me, but it is best to avoid contact, lol; viruses and bad habits, you know.
Post by: ATMD on 13/12/2018 13:51:43
Now you tell me.If you like Bohemian Cosmology, there is still some hope for you in the ISU!
I have to try, don't hog all the intelligence, I need some too, I could use it to impress the chicks lol
You are welcome to anything you can pick up from me, but it is best to avoid contact, lol; viruses and bad habits, you know.
Perfect :)
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/12/2018 14:46:50
@NakedScientist @chris
The Naked Scientists, a poem
The Naked Science Forum, wow!
It is a perfect place,
For answers to hard science now,
Or you can speculate.
Post a question on your mind,
An expert will reply.
But set aside discussion time
’Cause chat they don’t deny.
Host your images that go
Along with what you post,
And link to them when they apply
To topics they will host.
Change your mind about what’s said.
Or a correction needs to be,
Just click the box that always says
Action: Modify, you see?
But don’t play them for the fool
Naked Scientists are keen
About their science learning school,
It's not a place to scheme.
So thank you Chris and NS team
For giving us this site,
Where we can post away all day,
And even through the night!
;)
Post by: jimbobghost on 13/12/2018 16:16:41
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/12/2018 16:34:13
i'm all kind of teary and choked up. :)That’s great.
I just pushed the Actions button, an then Reply, and can now post a response, which is, “Lol”.
Post by: ATMD on 13/12/2018 16:56:14
Btw Bogie, I have given that ISU model another look, if the universe has always existed, is there a place for God? Or is the idea of God similar to pantheism?
Post by: jimbobghost on 13/12/2018 17:17:58
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/12/2018 17:24:06
I knew you were talented. Thank you Bogiesmiles, your poetry was brilliant! :)There is room for God, there is room for Pantheism, and all. A resident of the ISU has freewill to exercise as they see fit, to the extent they can actually keep it and exercise it in real life (subject to the local rule of law, taxes, spouses, etc. lol).
Btw Bogie, I have given that ISU model another look, if the universe has always existed, is there a place for God? Or is the idea of God similar to pantheism?
Post by: ATMD on 13/12/2018 17:27:26
I knew you were talented. Thank you Bogiesmiles, your poetry was brilliant! :)There is room for God, there is room for Pantheism, and all. A resident of the ISU has freewill to exercise as they see fit, to the extent they can actually keep it and exercise it in real life (subject to the local rule of law, taxes, spouses, etc. lol).
Btw Bogie, I have given that ISU model another look, if the universe has always existed, is there a place for God? Or is the idea of God similar to pantheism?
Wow, that is extremely reasonable! I am an official believer of ISU :)
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/12/2018 17:35:47
Post by: ATMD on 13/12/2018 17:36:49
And the annual dues are reasonable, too! In fact, you aren’t allowed to leave the ISU, let alone get rejected. :)
Hahahah
Post by: jimbobghost on 13/12/2018 17:43:20
kind of like Scientology.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/12/2018 17:46:45
Post by: jimbobghost on 13/12/2018 17:48:35
Post by: ATMD on 13/12/2018 17:51:20
Yes, kind of, except you can keep your savings account.
I am thankful for that policy ;)
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/12/2018 17:52:02
and your family can talk to you, even if you are no longer a believer.No, you have to give up your kids, and you must sign a “believer” document. No wait, that clause didn’t pass yet; we’ll try it again later. Pay attention or you lose your inalienable rights, lol.
Post by: jimbobghost on 13/12/2018 17:53:38
Post by: ATMD on 13/12/2018 17:56:03
as long as the contract is less than a billion years, sign me up.
hahahah
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/12/2018 18:11:37
as long as the contract is less than a billion years, sign me up.There is a saying in the ISU:
Anything finite In the ISU is almost nothing, almost nowhere, almost never, relative to the Infinite!
Post by: ATMD on 13/12/2018 18:27:34
as long as the contract is less than a billion years, sign me up.There is a saying in the ISU:
Anything finite In the ISU is almost nothing, almost nowhere, almost never, relative to the Infinite!
Very true, relative to infinity, finite is almost negligible :)
Post by: jimbobghost on 13/12/2018 18:50:51
I am almost ready to give up on Scientology, and sign up with ISU.
(but first, I think i'll have another drink, whilst I contemplate my navel.)
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/12/2018 19:22:02
Post by: jimbobghost on 13/12/2018 19:28:20
my only problem is that in the future, I tend to forget my rationale; which is only regained by bringing the alcohol level in my blood back to the level achieved whilst making my breakthroughs in creative thought.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/12/2018 19:40:53
Post by: jimbobghost on 13/12/2018 19:59:00
I am pleased to report that I have never received a DUI, nor been arrested for any drinking offense.
I enjoy drinking alone...allows more for me, eliminates the annoyance of companions constantly talking to me (especially those of the female persuasion); and especially gives me more time to read your contributions to TNS.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/12/2018 20:09:21
Post by: David Cooper on 13/12/2018 20:17:58
You've been Googling again, lol.
Not googled - some words absolutely shouldn't be if you don't want the wrong kind of pictures to appear in the results, but the result of my not doing proper research is that I don't know where the different spellings of what sounds like the same word come from. I just happen to know about бог due to a little bit of time spent studying Russian, plus something I heard on the subject from a well known TV lexicographer which confirmed the connection.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/12/2018 20:31:40
Are you saying you don’t have your own personal lexicographer? Oh well, who does, I guess, lol.
Not googled - some words absolutely shouldn't be if you don't want the wrong kind of pictures to appear in the results, but the result of my not doing proper research is that I don't know where the different spellings of what sounds like the same word come from. I just happen to know about бог due to a little bit of time spent studying Russian, plus something I heard on the subject from a well known TV lexicographer which confirmed the connection.
You do have pretty detailed scenarios related to absolute time and space. I wonder what the list of absolutes includes, i.e., time, space, the speed of light in vacua, and I suppose many absolute values like that. Can you give me a little insight into to the path you followed that guides to adopt absolute time and space?
Post by: jimbobghost on 13/12/2018 21:23:23
altho i do not own a cat, i have endured the association of human women, who are known to exibit a similar tendency.
usually, i found this manuver in human females to mean either "rub my belly" or "get off me and leave me alone"
in either event, i have found it advisable to simply go to bed, and make no further effort in interpreting the intentions of any of the feline pursuasion.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/12/2018 01:40:02
Advice On Absolutes, a poem
Life is a learning institute
Where no class bells will chime
But not one fact brings no dispute
And certainly not time.
Some will say time is absolute
Just like they’ll say of space.
But then surely some will refute
Theres Absolutes in place.
So stand your line, and don’t stay mute,
Or make apology.
Stand up for things beyond refute,
In your cosmology :)
Post by: jimbobghost on 14/12/2018 03:15:25
I must for once disagree.
there comes a time to lay down the sword (or your principles), when you come to the conclusion you are dealing with either those unworthy of combat, or those unable to reasonably dispute your values.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/12/2018 03:43:58
sorry Bogie,It is an art, negotiating one’s position without aggressive discord. The discussion has laid out the ground we stand on; the poem expressed an acceptance of a differing position, and acknowledges that no one has to give ground without being shown superior evidence.
I must for once disagree.
there comes a time to lay down the sword (or your principles), when you come to the conclusion you are dealing with either those unworthy of combat, or those unable to reasonably dispute your values.
What comes next?
Physical proof?
Superior logic?
Peer support?
Future exchanges?
The clock is ticking, but the question is, is it ticking away in absolute time or not?
The answer is agreed; it is not ticking in absolute increments, but is the logic that it can theoretically be transformed to absolute time sound logic? Not unless we can quantify at what rate it is that we would have to transform to too.
Still room for debate.
And as one might expect, the debate will continue... see replies #209 and #217. How is that for a prediction :tongue in cheek:?
Post by: jimbobghost on 14/12/2018 03:52:32
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/12/2018 04:21:54
A rock can feel no pain, an island never cries.
Post by: ATMD on 14/12/2018 12:57:53
Applies to both @David Cooper @Bogie_smiles
Advice On Absolutes, a poem
Life is a learning institute
Where no class bells will chime
But not one fact brings no dispute
And certainly not time.
Some will say time is absolute
Just like they’ll say of space.
But then surely some will refute
Theres Absolutes in place.
So stand your line, and don’t stay mute,
Or make apology.
Stand up for things beyond refute,
In your cosmology :)
Thank you, I always appreciate creative writing, it is a powerful way to send a message
Post by: jimbobghost on 14/12/2018 17:42:55
I concur.
I encourage Bogie to find a musician with whom to collaborate; and release the next great religious/pop hit!
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/12/2018 18:28:03
"Thank you, I always appreciate creative writing, it is a powerful way to send a message"Not going to happen, not even an inkling in my eye, lol.
I concur.
I encourage Bogie to find a musician with whom to collaborate; and release the next great religious/pop hit!
My interest is in evolving the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model, as a layman science enthusiasts cosmology of the universe. In its current version, having evolved since its earliest inklings which I would place in 2001, it has always been both a quantum mechanical wave-energy scenario (Quantum Wave Mechanics), and a philosophy (Eternal Intent) derived from the mechanical scenarios.
An old poem about the ISU
Meteorites, the poem
The Universe, a quiet place, is home to our existence,
But surely the perspective skews when viewed from such a distance.
Big Bangs blast out the building blocks of life's regeneration,
In places far, imponder'ble, beyond imagination.
No start of time, no end of space; a wave energy domain,
A place where God and Universe seem essentially the same.
What guides your acts; your own freewill, to be cast responsibly,
Take caution then, false words and deeds, affect life predictably.
Yet life is so undaunted that perpetually its found there,
Created or evolved it seems to spring form almost nowhere.
From galaxies, to holes of black, dark matter and neutrinos,
Where endlessly life's dice are tossed in cosmic class casinos.
Explosions then, great cataclysms, booms, its an inferno,
Our beings shoot like meteors, traversing space eternal.
The roles that we have just disposed are not the final curtain,
We'll star as sparkling meteorites, leading roles for certain.
Post by: jimbobghost on 14/12/2018 21:32:16
Post by: ATMD on 14/12/2018 21:52:03
Yet life is so undaunted that perpetually its found there,
Created or evolved it seems to spring form almost nowhere.
From galaxies, to holes of black, dark matter and neutrinos,
Where endlessly life's dice are tossed in cosmic class casinos.
This has got to be my favorite, you've got skills man :)
Btw as a believer of ISU, what is the official explanation for the origin of life ;D
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/12/2018 23:12:55
In the ISU, life has always existed, and is generative and evolvative.
Btw as a believer of ISU, what is the official explanation for the origin of life ;D
“Generative” means that in any hospitable environment associated with big bang arenas, generally referring to planets in the goldilocks zones around stars, but anywhere across the landscape of the greater universe, there is an iterative process of life generation going on all the time. That process relies on the probability that iterations of every combination of the elements and physical conditions can naturally and randomly occur over time. When the right combinations and conditions fall into place, life arises in the form of molecules that are capable of replicating themselves. Given favorable conditions and some successful random iterations, these living molecules evolve all the way from self-generation and replication, to self-awareness and intelligence.
The generation of life from the elements and environmental conditions is a mainstay of the ISU model. The premise is that, given the infinite past and infinite future, life always has and always will exist abundantly throughout hospitable host sites that are everywhere in mature big bang arenas.
Highly evolved life forms can reach great heights of intelligence and capabilities, and will learn to employ all available resources. The ability of highly intelligent life forms to migrate throughout solar systems, throughout galaxies, and even to escape the catastrophes associated with big bang arena action is expected to be a fact. Such advanced lifeforms with lengthy heritages might just be able to slip out into the corridors of continuity, i.e., the space that connects the multiple big bang arena events across the landscape of the greater universe, and cross populate whole arenas, at the same time life is being self-generated in those same environments.
Who knows what life is like out there?
Post by: David Cooper on 14/12/2018 23:47:19
You do have pretty detailed scenarios related to absolute time and space. I wonder what the list of absolutes includes, i.e., time, space, the speed of light in vacua, and I suppose many absolute values like that. Can you give me a little insight into to the path you followed that guides to adopt absolute time and space?
Our measurements show us that light consistently travels at the same speed through space (for a given depth in a gravity well, and that it varies in a predictable way at different heights in a gravity well). In that, we already see that space and time must be extremely consistent things - they give us the same results for experiments over and over again. We run experiments which show us the functionality of clocks being slowed by movement through space (and by depth in a gravity well). We run the MMX experiment and see that the apparatus must contract in length its direction of travel, but always in a predictable way. We know that space must be more than nothing because if there was literally nothing between us and a neighbouring star, that star would be touching us - there could be no distance between us. Something physical has to be there to support the phenomenon of distance. (In a simulation you can use coordinates instead and crunch numbers to calculate how far apart things are, but that's an abstraction - the real universe isn't computing like that [unless it's a simulation, but physics should be focused on the idea that it's real]). Assuming then that the universe is real rather than a simulation, space must be a fabric of some kind.
As we send two lots of light round different paths to get from A to B, we get predictable results - time isn't speeding up and slowing down in random ways in different places, and space maintains separations predictably rather than having distances between two things continually vary in random ways. There's a very precise mechanism in play behind everything we see. If time was behaving in unpredictable ways, we'd see distortions in space between ourselves and distant stars and galaxies. The only distortion we see though is predictable gravitational lensing. When we send light from A to B and back many times and run a clock at A, we notice that the time of each trip is the same as the one before - the long light clock ticks at the same rate as the short light clock if we adjust to make the light travel the same distance between ticks for each clock. The movement of light through space in such a predictable way depends on a time that's highly consistent. Space and time are fundamentals, and light travels through a given length of space in a set amount of time (unless it's slowed by being in a gravity well).
Can time run slow for some clocks if those clocks run slow? Not if it's a moving clock - we can see the mechanism by which the clock runs slow and we know that the light in a moving light clock is still moving at the same rate through space as it would if the clock was stationary, so we are not fooled by the clock running slow. If we put a clock down a gravity well, we are not fooled by it running slow either because the speed of light is slower down there - we know that time is not running slow there, but that the clock is. We also know that the clock isn't taking a shortcut into the future by being in a gravity well - it is simply ticking more slowly while passing through the same amount of time as a clock right at the top of the well, and we can check this by moving them apart and then moving them back together - if one of them had taken a shortcut into the future, we would see an event-meshing failure and the laws of physics would break because we see them meeting up and can knock them against each other, but a shortcut into the future would mean that the one that took the shortcut would fail to collide with the other clock because that other clock wouldn't be there yet when the shortcut taker arrives at the reunion point. It's really simple to demonstrate this with a simulation, but all the people who simulate theories without absolute time have to sneak it into the simulation to coordinate the action while pretending they haven't done so. Their models simply cannot work the way they claim, and it's extraordinary that they're able to get away with cheating like that even after they've been found out, but so few people can get their head round this stuff that they simply aren't capable of checking the facts. Those who are so sure they're right though have an obligation to show a working simulation of their model that doesn't cheat by smuggling in absolute time. They refuse to do so.
Post by: ATMD on 15/12/2018 00:04:01
They would also probably be laughing at our feeble technology :D
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 15/12/2018 00:44:09
Given that life has already existed for an infinite amount of time, certain life forms would be so advanced and developed that any possible method of transportation has been learned and mastered, any knowledge about this universe has been acquired, they must be so high tech that they consider us modern humans as how we consider bacteria.
They would also probably be laughing at our feeble technology :D
Maybe, but possibly high evolution involves a process of cleaning up the human genome, and the human flaws that we all know about might be filtered out of the mix in the genome of those highly advanced and developed life forms.
I’m sure there would still be some humor seen in the slow struggling progress of man, but I think from such a perspective, there comes an appreciation for the struggle. There are odds that any single intelligent life form like ours faces, and maybe the posture of the super-advanced is to cautiously lend a hand.
Post by: ATMD on 15/12/2018 01:23:37
maybe the posture of the super-advanced is to cautiously lend a hand.[/font][/color]
That would be wonderful ;D
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 15/12/2018 01:29:00
If I didn’t mention it, part of the philosophy of the ISU includes maintaining a positive attitude, lol.
That would be wonderful ;D
Post by: ATMD on 15/12/2018 11:53:02
If I didn’t mention it, part of the philosophy of the ISU includes maintaining a positive attitude, lol.
That would be wonderful ;D
To be honest this should be a strict policy. Only people with a positive attitude allowed to join ISU ;D
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 15/12/2018 12:21:27
I wish :) .
To be honest this should be a strict policy. Only people with a positive attitude allowed to join ISU ;D
But in the ISU everything is relative to something else. I guess we have to face the fact that the ISU rules are the invariant natural laws of the universe, and they're already set. On the other hand, our personal philosophy of life allows us to set our own rules to live by. That is good because we can decide to require a positive attitude, and we can decide when to change our philosophy, lol.
Post by: ATMD on 15/12/2018 12:42:38
I wish :) .
To be honest this should be a strict policy. Only people with a positive attitude allowed to join ISU ;D
But in the ISU everything is relative to something else. I guess we have to face the fact that the ISU rules are the invariant natural laws of the universe, and they're already set. On the other hand, our personal philosophy of life allows us to set our own rules to live by. That is good because we can decide to require a positive attitude, and we can decide when to change our philosophy, lol.
Very true, ISU is open to everyone :D
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 15/12/2018 15:21:52
That is well said, and I agree. One point of consistency between us is the speed of light through space is invariant, relative to the position in a gravity well (or as I phrase it, relative to the local gravitational wave energy density profile of space at that location).
Our measurements show us that light consistently travels at the same speed through space (for a given depth in a gravity well, and that it varies in a predictable way at different heights in a gravity well). In that, we already see that space and time must be extremely consistent things - they give us the same results for experiments over and over again. We run experiments which show us the functionality of clocks being slowed by movement through space (and by depth in a gravity well).
When I speak of clocks measuring the rate that time passes, the variable aspect is caused by their positions in the gravity well (i.e., by the relative frequency of the sum of all of the gravitational waves arriving there that have been emitted and traveled there from all of the distant surrounding sources. Those sources are all of the particles and objects out there that have mass, and that are in relative motion to each other). The way I suggest that the invariant natural laws of the universe pull that off is by the precise way that the gravitational wave energy density varies as you change position in a gravity well. After all, any change in position, in any direction, is subject to the gravity well analogy.
Quote
...I strongly agree. We are referring to the invariant laws of nature after all, lol. (let me know if you disagree with me about the concept of the “invariant laws of nature”).
As we send two lots of light round different paths to get from A to B, we get predictable results - time isn't speeding up and slowing down in random ways in different places, and space maintains separations predictably rather than having distances between two things continually vary in random ways. There's a very precise mechanism in play behind everything we see.
Quote
If time was behaving in unpredictable ways, we'd see distortions in space between ourselves and distant stars and galaxies.No one is saying that time is behaving in unpredictable ways, but you seem to be predicting that if time wasn’t absolute, we’d see distortions. That supposition can't be your only basis for invoking absolute time, can it? If so, what is the evidence that there would be your predicted distortions?
Quote
Can time run slow for some clocks if those clocks run slow?We agree that if there was such a thing as absolute time, and that if a given clock itself was running slower than an identical clock in the same position in a gravity well (i.e., where the gravitational wave energy density was the same for both clocks), then if one of the two identical clocks runs slower in the same position in the "well", it is because of some sluggishness or manufacturing imperfection in that peculiar individual clock, and not due to a physical difference in the position in the gravity well (i.e., not due to a difference in the local gravitational wave energy density).
Quote
Not if it's a moving clock - we can see the mechanism by which the clock runs slow and we know that the light in a moving light clock is still moving at the same rate through space as it would if the clock was stationary, so we are not fooled by the clock running slow. If we put a clock down a gravity well, we are not fooled by it running slow either because the speed of light is slower down there - we know that time is not running slow there, but that the clock is. We also know that the clock isn't taking a shortcut into the future by being in a gravity well - it is simply ticking more slowly while passing through the same amount of time as a clock right at the top of the well, and we can check this by moving them apart and then moving them back together - ...We are in agreement in regard to the variable rate that identical clocks would display the difference in the rate of time passing at different “depths” in a gravity well. My view is to say that time simply passes every where, but that the difference shown by clocks measuring it is a function of their relative positions in the gravity well, and therefore due to a difference in the gravitational wave energy density profile of their local space. That thinking doesn't convert to being a suggestion that there is an absolute rate of time passing, as measured by a clock, somewhere out in the deepest possible space; there isn't any place in the universe, as I know it, that time could be measured to pass at some absolute rate, so there is no rate that can be used as a "standard" or absolute rate that all clocks can be measured against, or converted to. This is a strong logical argument, and you should feel obligated to refute it convincingly.
I do want to point out another area where your absolutes seem to break down, and that comes to light when you refer to “moving them (the clocks) apart and then moving them back together”.
I remember asking you about a coordinate system that could allow you to detect exact physical locations in space. If you move the clocks apart and then back together, assuming you intend to move them back to the exact location where they started, over the same paths, how do you determine the exact coordinates of the starting location, and how do you determine that you have returned the clocks, over the same paths, to their exact starting locations?
That is a logical question/argument that comes up in regard to absolute space. As far as I know you have no way of marking the start position, plotting the exact paths, and returning to the exact starting positions (barring @jimbobghost ’s interesting suggestion of leaving bread crumbs; just not sure yet how to make them say put?).
Quote
... if one of them had taken a shortcut into the future, we would see an event-meshing failure and the laws of physics would break because we see them meeting up and can knock them against each other, but a shortcut into the future would mean that the one that took the shortcut would fail to collide with the other clock because that other clock wouldn't be there yet when the shortcut taker arrives at the reunion point.The fact that you acknowledge the difficulty of pulling off the act of separating the clocks, and then getting them back to their original places, your demonstration is not a convincing argument. You can certainly adjust the act of returning the clocks together by cheating, to use your argument, meaning by adjusting the act of returning the clocks to their start positions using visual assistance in regard to the relative positions of the clocks as you move them, and adjusting the return path visually until they are back together. Still, there is no evidence that when they are brought back together even using visual assistance, that they are back to their original positions in absolute space, is there?
Quote
It's really simple to demonstrate this with a simulation, but all the people who simulate theories without absolute time have to sneak it into the simulation to coordinate the action while pretending they haven't done so. Their models simply cannot work the way they claim, and it's extraordinary that they're able to get away with cheating like that even after they've been found out, but so few people can get their head round this stuff that they simply aren't capable of checking the facts. Those who are so sure they're right though have an obligation to show a working simulation of their model that doesn't cheat by smuggling in absolute time. They refuse to do so.The simple demonstrations you suggest will not work, in my world view. They won’t work, not only because there is no absolute time or space in any practical situation, but if there were, you are facing the fact that without bread crumbs and visual “assistance” (which you would call cheating, lol), you cannot pull off the simple demonstrations.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 15/12/2018 16:29:25
is it my imagination, or is Bogie channeling Nostradamus?@jimbobghost Take another look at reply #200 for some evidence of channeling Nostradamus!
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 15/12/2018 17:50:11
I edited the following post to include @chris and @NakedScientist , which I should have included originally if I wanted them to see it.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75389.msg562500#msg562500
Post by: David Cooper on 15/12/2018 19:42:16
The way I suggest that the invariant natural laws of the universe pull that off is by the precise way that the gravitational wave energy density varies as you change position in a gravity well. After all, any change in position, in any direction, is subject to the gravity well analogy.
There are many theories about the cause of the slowing of clocks in a gravity well, but we needn't worry too much about which is right - all that matters is that either: (1) clocks run slow deeper down and time runs slower too, (2) clocks run slow there but time does not slow, or (3) clocks don't really run slow there but merely appear to while they're actually taking shortcuts into the future. The third option automatically generates event-meshing failures, so it is a fantasy. The first option also breaks because the clock has extra work to do due to the additional activity/stuff that's slowing its ticking, while the ticking only records the part of the action that doesn't include extra stuff that the clock is doing, so time is actually running faster than the clock suggests. (2) is the only viable answer.
Quote
No one is saying that time is behaving in unpredictable ways, but you seem to be predicting that if time wasn’t absolute, we’d see distortions. That supposition can't be your only basis for invoking absolute time, can it? If so, what is the evidence that there would be your predicted distortions?
Without absolute time, why should time run at the same rate at locations Y and Z where conditions are identical? Why do they actually tick at the same rate instead of time being random and creating a difference between them? The lack of distortions tells us that time is running at practically the same rate in all the remote, empty areas of space, and that isn't by luck. There is a certain amount of action that is allowed by time in a given length of time, and time is a key part of the mechanism behind that uniformity. If you see slower action somewhere and you can see that there is are rational potential explanations for that slowing, having time run slow there too would make those mechanisms redundant. Think carefully about that. Slowing down time to match the speed of the clock would make that slowed time the mechanism for that clock running slow, leaving no role for gravity, gravitational waves or whatever to slow clocks down. And if you imagine that the mechanism involves gravity slowing time and time slowing clocks as a mere consequence of time being slowed, then how is time being slowed? Slowed relative to what? Absolute time? If you don't have an absolute time to slow this time relative to, you can't coordinate your slowed time to time anywhere else - you're breaking a vital mechanism.
Quote
My view is to say that time simply passes every where, but that the difference shown by clocks measuring it is a function of their relative positions in the gravity well, and therefore due to a difference in the gravitational wave energy density profile of their local space. That thinking doesn't convert to being a suggestion that there is an absolute rate of time passing, as measured by a clock, somewhere out in the deepest possible space; there isn't any place in the universe, as I know it, that time could be measured to pass at some absolute rate, so there is no rate that can be used as a "standard" or absolute rate that all clocks can be measured against, or converted to. This is a strong logical argument, and you should feel obligated to refute it convincingly.
You have a slowing mechanism which you're applying everywhere, and that slowing has to be a slowing relative to something. That something is absolute time - without it, how are you going to get coordinated slowing? It doesn't just happen by luck - there's a control mechanism. In every place where you have a slowing mechanism actively slowing the functionality of stuff, you have stuff with its functionality being interrupted by that mechanism and preventing it from recording so much time passing in a given length of absolute time - the time that it's failing to record is the time taken up by the interruptions.
Quote
I do want to point out another area where your absolutes seem to break down, and that comes to light when you refer to “moving them (the clocks) apart and then moving them back together”.
I was thinking there in terms of one clock staying at a fixed height in a gravity well while the other is lowered away from the first and then raised back up to it again, recording less time appearing to go by during its trip.
Quote
I remember asking you about a coordinate system that could allow you to detect exact physical locations in space. If you move the clocks apart and then back together, assuming you intend to move them back to the exact location where they started, over the same paths, how do you determine the exact coordinates of the starting location, and how do you determine that you have returned the clocks, over the same paths, to their exact starting locations?
You can't tell whether you've done that or not due to the phenomenon of relativity, but you can tell that if you were able to keep one of them stationary and move the other away from it and back again, the one that moved would record less time appearing to pass because the movement will slow its functionality. It is only the compound functionality that is slowed though - all of the fundamental components (such as the light pulse which is a key part of a light clock's mechanism) continue to operate at full speed throughout. The only reason we can't pin down whether a clock is stationary or not is that if it's moving and you treat it as the stationary clock, the clock that you move away from it and back might tick faster than it on one leg of its trip, but it will tick so much slower on the other leg that it will end up with exactly the same time difference recorded by the end as if the other clock was stationary. We understand the mechanism by which this happens and we should not be fooled by it, but it does mean that we can never pin down some important facts.
Quote
That is a logical question/argument that comes up in regard to absolute space. As far as I know you have no way of marking the start position, plotting the exact paths, and returning to the exact starting positions (barring @jimbobghost ’s interesting suggestion of leaving bread crumbs; just not sure yet how to make them say put?).
You can put down rival trails of "stationary" crumbs using different frames of reference to guide you, but all that will do is confirm that relativity allows you to use any one you like as any of them could be the one that's at rest.
Quote
The fact that you acknowledge the difficulty of pulling off the act of separating the clocks, and then getting them back to their original places, your demonstration is not a convincing argument.
In the case of gravity wells, which is the more useful thought experiment for this, we are sidelining the entire problem of telling whether we're stationary or moving - we're simply looking at the other clock slowing mechanism while the other mechanism (depending on speed of travel) becomes an irrelevance. The clock taken deep into the gravity well and back out again (and it can be moved very slowly, so the relative speed of movement of the clocks remains irrelevant), any idea that this clock took a shortcut into the future (as with GR) is disproved by the lack of event-meshing failures in the real universe. That means that the clock must actually have run slow. The issue for you is different as you accept that the clock does run slow, but you want time to run slow with it, and that not only removes time as a control mechanism, but gives you nothing to slow the clock relative to.
Quote
You can certainly adjust the act of returning the clocks together by cheating, to use your argument, meaning by adjusting the act of returning the clocks to their start positions using visual assistance in regard to the relative positions of the clocks as you move them, and adjusting the return path visually until they are back together. Still, there is no evidence that when they are brought back together even using visual assistance, that they are back to their original positions in absolute space, is there?[/font]
With the gravity well case, we don't need to care if they're back to their original positions or not. If the whole system of gravity well and clocks is moving at 0.866c through space, it simply means that what we see happen is all running at half the rate of functionality it would if the system was stationary. In such a case (where the functionality is all slowed to half), we already have the clocks ticking at a rate which is very different from the absolute time that controls the rate at which light is moving through space there. Down in the well though, that light is moving more slowly, so the functionality of a clock there would still be slowed to half the rate of the rate of travel through space of the local light (which is not slowed at all by the speed of travel of the system through space, but which is slowed gravitationally).
Quote
The simple demonstrations you suggest will not work, in my world view. They won’t work, not only because there is no absolute time or space in any practical situation, but if there were, you are facing the fact that without bread crumbs and visual “assistance” (which you would call cheating, lol), you cannot pull off the simple demonstrations.
The real universe works mechanistically. A viable simulation also works mechanistically and can simulate the real universe. A bad model which cannot be simulated without cheating is also incapable of running a real universe. With the gravity well experiment, we don't need to care about location - the influence of speed of travel through space is the same for all parts of the system, slowing both clocks equally, so it is irrelevant. Think about simulating the gravity well experiment, and if you want to, you can do the whole thing with the system at rest and then do it again with it moving at any speed you like - the differences are of no consequence to the truth the simulation is testing. In the simulation, we lower a clock into a gravity well, then raise it back up next to the other clock (which it started next to). The lowered clock recorded less time appearing to pass. Now simulate the mechanism for that and see if you can get it to work without absolute time. The processor has a clock that keeps the action ticking at a fixed rate. That is absolute time for the simulation, so if you don't want absolute time to be involved, you have to write the simulation in such a way that that clock has no influence on events - you are banned from using it to coordinate events. The same applies to the real universe - that thing that controls the rate at which things happen is a hidden absolute time equivalent to the clock in the processor that beats out the action. How are you going to slow down time for the lowered clock compared with the clock at the top? How is it going to tick at any rate when you have no absolute time to govern it? The whole model immediately becomes disfunctional. Where's your mechanism? No one has any mechanism other than absolute time, and when they run simulations of their models that deny absolute time and resolutely avoid allowing any official timer to govern events, they actually have all the action being coordinated by the universal clock that governs the processor - the speed of that ticking determines the relative rates that all the different clocks in the simulation run at.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 15/12/2018 22:35:30
Going back one round in our discussion:
You said:
To that, I responded:
Our measurements show us that light consistently travels at the same speed through space (for a given depth in a gravity well, and that it varies in a predictable way at different heights in a gravity well).
The way I suggest that the invariant natural laws of the universe pull that off is by the precise way that the gravitational wave energy density varies as you change position in a gravity well. After all, any change in position, in any direction, is subject to the gravity well analogy.
To which you responded:
There are many theories about the cause of the slowing of clocks in a gravity well, but we needn't worry too much about which is right - all that matters is that either: (1) clocks run slow deeper down and time runs slower too, (2) clocks run slow there but time does not slow, or (3) clocks don't really run slow there but merely appear to while they're actually taking shortcuts into the future. The third option automatically generates event-meshing failures, so it is a fantasy. The first option also breaks because the clock has extra work to do due to the additional activity/stuff that's slowing its ticking, while the ticking only records the part of the action that doesn't include extra stuff that the clock is doing, so time is actually running faster than the clock suggests. (2) is the only viable answer.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, your response is without merit because:
#1 You wave off the generally accepted and physically repeatable scientific observations about the science of how a gravity well, and/or relative acceleration affects the rate that clocks measure and record the passing of time. Though they don't falsify the existence of absolute time, they provide an evidenced based argument for questioning absolute time.
#2 (And this just mentioned because part of my motivation to discuss the topic of absolute time is that I have my own views associated with it that I hoped to discuss: You disregard and do not respond to the premise I put forth regarding gravitational wave energy density influencing the rate that clocks at different depths in a gravity well will measure and record the passing of time.)
#3 Instead of referring to the generally accepted physics within the scientific community that describe the effect of relative motion on the rate that two identical clocks measure and record the passing of time in different environments, and in fact, science to which we have already agreed, you provide a new list of three different circumstances that you say really matter instead.
#4 Your choice from your own list, item #2, invokes the premise that you are proposing to prove, without actually showing any evidence to support it. On the other hand, I can site the experiments conducted with identical atomic clocks that are the basis for the agreement that has been reached by the scientific community.
Conclusion: You are saying your position is true by your own authority.
Quote from: from somewhere on the Internet about common fallacies
So please give me a response that supports the premise that there is absolute time, other than on your own authority.
Argument From Authority:
This is the flip side of the ad hominem; in this case, the argument is advanced because of those advancing it. But arguments from authority carry little weight: the history of human kind is consistent in one fact: the frequency of human error.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/12/2018 03:14:16
This is just for Saturday night fun :)
Never to be repeated, lol.
Quantum Gravity For Fun
For’get a’bout your curved space’time,
And so to New’ton’s mass times mass.
For Quan’tum grav’i’ty Di’vined,
Is found a’long a quan’tum path.
Like a sci’ence rev’o’lu’tion,
The sec’ret falls right in’to place.
Quan’tum grav’i’tys so’lu’tion,
Re’quires you have a lit’tle faith.
With Grav’i’ty waves all a’round,
Then Quan’tum grav’i’ty is nye.
Where wave os’cil’la’tions a’bound,
youll find it right there if you try.
See wave con’verg’enc’es of course,
Your in the right vi’cin’i’ty.
Ob’jects move toward the great’est source,
Of wave en’er’gy den’si’ty.
Though its not what you were think’ing,
But now go to sleep hap’pi’ly.
No one knows what I’ve been drink’en,
But that is quan’tum grav’i’ty!
Post by: David Cooper on 16/12/2018 19:01:54
QuoteThere are many theories about the cause of the slowing of clocks in a gravity well, but we needn't worry too much about which is right - all that matters is that either: (1) clocks run slow deeper down and time runs slower too, (2) clocks run slow there but time does not slow, or (3) clocks don't really run slow there but merely appear to while they're actually taking shortcuts into the future. The third option automatically generates event-meshing failures, so it is a fantasy. The first option also breaks because the clock has extra work to do due to the additional activity/stuff that's slowing its ticking, while the ticking only records the part of the action that doesn't include extra stuff that the clock is doing, so time is actually running faster than the clock suggests. (2) is the only viable answer.
#1 You wave off the generally accepted and physically repeatable scientific observations about the science of how a gravity well, and/or relative acceleration affects the rate that clocks measure and record the passing of time. Though they don't falsify the existence of absolute time, they provide an evidenced based argument for questioning absolute time.
Where do I do that? What I've said ties in precisely with the results of experiments. We can put one atomic clock on a high shelf and another on a low shelf, and we see the lower clock tick less often than the higher one in a fully predictable way. The things I've labelled as (1), (2) and (3) are different interpretations of the same facts. I have then pointed out the consequences of each interpretation, thereby showing two of them to be faulty.
Quote
Conclusion: You are saying your position is true by your own authority.
It has nothing to do with my authority - it's driven solely by the diktats of logical reasoning. (3) produces event-meshing failures which contradict what we see in nature, so we can only accept (3) by rejecting logic - that destroys both of Einstein's theories of relativity in a single stroke for anyone who is fully rational. Your theory appears to be (1) though, and while (1) can also be shown to be wrong, it's harder for people to get their heads round why (and it's already been shown to be virtually impossible to get most people to recognise that (3) is wrong). This is something that all AGI systems will understand though, because if they are to apply reason consistently without contradiction, they will automatically invalidate (3) and (1) - it is mathematically required that they do so. Like I said - this has nothing to do with my authority, but is driven by maths (and reason, which is a fundamental part of maths).
Quote
#2 (And this just mentioned because part of my motivation to discuss the topic of absolute time is that I have my own views associated with it that I hoped to discuss: You disregard and do not respond to the premise I put forth regarding gravitational wave energy density influencing the rate that clocks at different depths in a gravity well will measure and record the passing of time.)
You have a theory which I doubt is correct, but I'm not going to rule it out - the strength of these gravitational waves, however small they may be, could correlate to the amount of slowing of functionality at any point in space and could therefore be the cause. It doesn't appear to me necessary that your theory assert that time slows down in addition to clocks slowing down, so even if you are wrong about time slowing, that doesn't break the rest of your model. You are simply asserting that time slows down to match the slowing of clocks, and that's unnecessary (in addition to being wrong) - you don't need it to do so.
Quote
Instead of referring to the generally accepted physics within the scientific community that describe the effect of relative motion on the rate that two identical clocks measure and record the passing of time in different environments, and in fact, science to which we have already agreed, you provide a new list of three different circumstances that you say really matter instead.
The generally accepted "physics" that you talk of is represented by (3). My list is of three interpretations of accepted facts, and your theory is represented by (1), while LET is represented by (2). The theory here that isn't in any way recognised by the mainstream is yours: (1), so do you want me to throw that out on the basis that the mainstream don't have any time for it?
Quote
Your choice from your own list, item #2, invokes the premise that you are proposing to prove, without actually showing any evidence to support it.
When you're dealing with three interpretations of something and you find faults in two of them that rule them out, that doesn't prove the surviving option - there may be other interpretations that could be added to the list. However, the options that are shown to be impossible due to faults can be ruled out. In your case, that doesn't appear to be a serious problem though as your model, so far as I can see, doesn't depend on there being no absolute time - you have merely asserted that there is no absolute time and have tied that to your model for no good reason other than that you can't detect it directly. It has to be logically inferred, and for the rest of your model to work, you need absolute time as a control mechanism. You may not be able to see that yet, but if you were to write a simulation of your model, I can guarantee that you won't be able to make it work without putting absolute time into it to coordinate the action.
Quote
On the other hand, I can site the experiments conducted with identical atomic clocks that are the basis for the agreement that has been reached by the scientific community.
Everything I said agrees with the exact same evidence.
Quote
So please give me a response that supports the premise that there is absolute time, other than on your own authority.
You've already been given that in reply #220.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/12/2018 21:16:33
I was out of line in my layman level science enthusiasm to suggest that there is faulty logic behind the beliefs in absolute time and space. I’m sure you have had those views long enough to understand the playing field better than a novice like myself.
Where do I do that? What I've said ties in precisely with the results of experiments. We can put one atomic clock on a high shelf and another on a low shelf, and we see the lower clock tick less often than the higher one in a fully predictable way. The things I've labelled as (1), (2) and (3) are different interpretations of the same facts. I have then pointed out the consequences of each interpretation, thereby showing two of them to be faulty.
It has nothing to do with my authority - it's driven solely by the diktats of logical reasoning. (3) produces event-meshing failures which contradict what we see in nature, so we can only accept (3) by rejecting logic - that destroys both of Einstein's theories of relativity in a single stroke for anyone who is fully rational. Your theory appears to be (1) though, and while (1) can also be shown to be wrong, it's harder for people to get their heads round why (and it's already been shown to be virtually impossible to get most people to recognise that (3) is wrong). This is something that all AGI systems will understand though, because if they are to apply reason consistently without contradiction, they will automatically invalidate (3) and (1) - it is mathematically required that they do so. Like I said - this has nothing to do with my authority, but is driven by maths (and reason, which is a fundamental part of maths).
You have a theory which I doubt is correct, but I'm not going to rule it out - the strength of these gravitational waves, however small they may be, could correlate to the amount of slowing of functionality at any point in space and could therefore be the cause. It doesn't appear to me necessary that your theory assert that time slows down in addition to clocks slowing down, so even if you are wrong about time slowing, that doesn't break the rest of your model. You are simply asserting that time slows down to match the slowing of clocks, and that's unnecessary (in addition to being wrong) - you don't need it to do so.
The generally accepted "physics" that you talk of is represented by (3). My list is of three interpretations of accepted facts, and your theory is represented by (1), while LET is represented by (2). The theory here that isn't in any way recognised by the mainstream is yours: (1), so do you want me to throw that out on the basis that the mainstream don't have any time for it?
When you're dealing with three interpretations of something and you find faults in two of them that rule them out, that doesn't prove the surviving option - there may be other interpretations that could be added to the list. However, the options that are shown to be impossible due to faults can be ruled out. In your case, that doesn't appear to be a serious problem though as your model, so far as I can see, doesn't depend on there being no absolute time - you have merely asserted that there is no absolute time and have tied that to your model for no good reason other than that you can't detect it directly. It has to be logically inferred, and for the rest of your model to work, you need absolute time as a control mechanism. You may not be able to see that yet, but if you were to write a simulation of your model, I can guarantee that you won't be able to make it work without putting absolute time into it to coordinate the action.
Everything I said agrees with the exact same evidence.
You've already been given that in reply #220.
My insinuation that you were waving off the generally accepted observations, which I stated that we both agreed to, was to point out the fact there is no place in the known universe where a clock can tick at the absolute rate that you say either exists, or is a necessary given. Combine that with the fact that gravity is a prime factor in the actual rate that clocks tick off the passing of time everywhere in the universe, and I end up in the camp that maintains there is no absolute time or space. To me those concepts are intellectually unnecessary, and seem to point to the establishment of a type of “clockwork” order to the universe./?
I just don’t wish to invoke what seems to be an artificial order on my concept of a universe that is as it should be, always has been, and could be no other way (to my layman science enthusiasts way of thinking). Infinite time, space, and energy are unalterable characteristics of the Infinite Spongy Universe model, which equates to my own appeal to authority, lol.
The process of coming to my own conclusions has caused me to inadvertently disregard those hundreds of years of history in regard to the concepts you and I are at odds on. There is plenty of history that addresses your chosen beliefs, and our differences are basic to our different beliefs. Perhaps they can be mutually written it off, as I am inclined to do, as being two different senses of reality, and two different sets of logic that get us to them.
On the other hand, it seems that when a person has made a conscious decision to join with those saying that there is absolute time and space, one would have to be well studied in the history of science. That history would logically include much work and thought along the lines of a mathematical framework where absolute time and space serve a necessary function.
Post by: David Cooper on 17/12/2018 19:36:04
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/12/2018 17:07:05
All it takes to find out why absolute time is a necessary component of any viable model is to produce a simulation of your model, and all you have to simulate is the simple thought experiment in which you have two clocks running at different rates at different altitudes in a gravity well. If you could make one that works and fits all the facts without absolute time, you would be able to prove me wrong, …
OK, let’s walk through the process of producing such a simulation. I’d like to do it using my model, so I will go step by step, and you can oversee the process if you want.
First step: We have two clocks running at different rates because they are at different altitudes (or depths) in a gravity well.
Quote
… but any such simulation will necessarily be dependent on an absolute time that must be smuggled into the model somewhere to coordinate the action. The real universe requires an equivalent mechanism for it to function correctly.
Then, let’s keep our eye out for how it gets smuggled in as we go.
Quote
Here we have another aspect of reality which many people deny on the basis that they can't directly detect it, just like with the fabric of space (which provides essential services upon which the action relies) - take it away and a model that supposedly doesn't need it no longer functions. With SR, this too is hidden in simulations by using one or more potential space fabrics while denying their vital role in controlling the action, and their very existence, but the simulation is using them no matter what the model makers claim. These hidden things, the space fabric and absolute time, both provide essential services, and if you write a simulation that removes those services which a model supposedly doesn't rely on, you find that it does rely on them - the model breaks without them.
Then it is the object of the simulation exercise to see if that is true. As I present my version, using my model, let’s keep an eye out for how I replace those services without invoking absolute time and space. Let’s highlight where the model breaks down by not using absolute time and/or space.
To start, note that in the ISU model, the fabric of space is called the gravitational wave energy density (gwed) profile of space, and I will describe that in detail to show that there is a positive gwed value for every point in space according to the ISU definitions.
Quote
It never fails to surprise me that so many top-level physicists don't understand this, but they are very good at self delusion, ignoring the inclusion in their simulations of services which they are banned from using in their model, but it's a near-universal defect in people's thinking. They will not be able to fool AGI though.
That sounds a lot like the saying, “It isn’t nice to fool Mother Nature,” lol.
A question, does AGI stand for artificial general intelligence, or what?
Anyway, Ok, here we go … see my next post.
Post by: David Cooper on 18/12/2018 19:57:32
Quote
A question, does AGI stand for artificial general intelligence, or what?
The former (i.e. it does not stand for what).
Maybe if I describe a simulation first it will help you construct yours. Let's focus on the time issue first and not worry about absolute space - we should keep things simple and deal with one thing at a time. Imagine a space containing two locations called A and B, the former being at or near the top of a gravity well and the latter being deep in a gravity well. We can simulate the action in a computer by applying a theory about what slows clocks at B.
Your gravitational wave idea, if it can produce the right numbers, should do just as well as any other mechanism, though I have to wonder where these gravitational waves are going to come from. If you have a clock sitting on a static planet in deep space, the clock must be slowed by the planet's mass, but there's nothing in the planet putting out gravitational waves because none of it is moving. It would need to be creating energy out of nothing all the time to radiate off as gravitational waves, but black holes clearly don't do that - they only produce detectable waves when orbiting each other in the final stages before merger, and while they're doing that, any object further out which is orbiting the pair of black holes on a circular path will have its clock tick at a near-constant rate while the strength of gravitational waves passing through it changes radically. However, it doesn't matter here whether your theory is broken or not - all that matters is that you're somehow producing numbers that generate the right amount of slowing of clocks, so if that needs a constant supply of gravitational waves passing through a clock to slow it, you can have that.
Let's use two computers for two simulations of this space with locations A and B at different altitudes in a gravity well. C1 (computer 1) will put a clock at location A, while C2 (computer 2) will put a clock at location B. The clocks can be described as being located at 1A and 2B. Both computers simulate the gravitational waves throughout the space. C1 (computer 1) simulates the ticking of the clock at 1A and allows the gravitational waves at A to slow its ticking a little. C2 (computer 2) simulates the ticking of the clock at 2A and allows the gravitational waves at B to slow its ticking - this slowing is more severe because there are more or stronger gravitational waves present at B. But what are the clocks being slowed relative to? They're being slowed relative to the clock of the simulation - the computers are timers, providing an absolute time to coordinate the action.
Why have I used two computers rather than one? Well, what happens if they have different speeds of processor? If C2 has a faster chip in it than C1, the clock deep in the gravity well at 2B might be ticking at a faster rate than the clock at 1A. The absolute time provided by the computers has a role which should not be ignored.
If we do everything on a single computer instead, we can have two clocks in the same simulation, one at A and the other at B, and now the clock at B will always run slower than the one at A. If we do this on C1 and C2 at the same time, both clocks will run faster on machine C2 than their equivalents on C1, but the relative ticking rates of the clocks at A and B will be the same for each simulation. Here's the important thing though: while we look at the two simulations being run, we can say with certainty that the clock at 1A is running more slowly than the clock at 2A, and we can also say that the clock at 1A is not recording all the time that is actually passing for it because we know that the simulation is running on a slower processor which simply takes longer to run the action. The rate at which time passes is not the rate shown by the clock being simulated. If we have two space fabrics hosting the action for real, but one of those fabrics is more responsive than the other (it can run the action faster), then that responsive fabric will allow clocks to tick faster than they do in a less-responsive space fabric, but time isn't running more slowly for the less-responsive fabric - it is simply a slower "processor" that takes longer to run the action. For it to be possible for one space fabric to be less responsive than another, there needs to be a mechanism that allows one to do more in a given length of (absolute) time. If we only have one space fabric, we still have that absolute time - it governs the default rate at which all parts of the space fabric run the action. If you then shove a whole lot of gravitational waves (or substitute some rival mechanism here) and the action slows down, you may then be causing the local fabric to run the action more slowly, but it's still governed by the default rate of action set by absolute time. Alternatively though, the fabric may not be slowed at all, but the functionality of the clock may be more directly slowed by its interactions with gravitational waves, in which case we have the fabric's clock ticking at full speed while the clock runs slow. Either way, we still have absolute time ticking faster than the clock.
What I'm trying to do here is show you how to think about mechanisms and whether you're using hidden ones that you don't notice are necessary to coordinate the action. If we want to get rid of absolute time from the above, then where is the control mechanism to make the clock at B run slower than the clock at A? Yes, we have more gravitational waves at B (in your model), but what are they slowing clock B relative to? Are they linked to the clock A, monitoring the action there and making sure that they don't go as fast? No - the control system is local to B and doesn't need to monitor clocks elsewhere because there is a local time. The fabric is trying to run the action at full speed by absolute time. If the fabric itself is slowed by gravitational waves, then it is taking more absolute time to run each action. Alternatively, if the fabric isn't slowed but the clock is directly slowed by gravitational waves, then the clock is taking more absolute time to run each tick. Time does not slow along with the clock - time is independent of any such slowing.
Let's go back to computers to see slowing in action. We can run a program which takes a long time to carry out a task. If we disable the interrupts, the processor will run at full speed and get the action done in a certain length of time. If we enable interrupts and attach some device like a keyboard that keeps triggering them, every time we press a key we will slow the action and make the computer take longer to carry out the task. That task might be to simulate a clock. The computer may be using the processor's speed (governed by a hidden clock) to change the time of a displayed virtual clock which keeps perfect time with our real clocks while the interrupts are disabled, or indeed if they are enabled but we aren't pressing any keys on the keyboard. If we press a key and hold it down though, we can steal processor time away from the simulated clock, so it will run slow. The gravitational waves running through the space fabric could act like these interrupts, taking up some of the time that it would otherwise be able to use to run the clock sitting at that location. The absolute time governing the amount of work that the fabric does in this case is unslowed, but the clock sitting in that space runs slow. Absolute time and the clock have decoupled because of the gravitational waves depriving the clock of "processing time" - the fabric is doing more work in a given amount of absolute time and it is making the clock tick more slowly as a result.
That was the case with the gravitational waves (or interrupts) taking up "processing time", but the alternative to that is to have the fabric run at full speed and the gravitational waves directly slow the clock. In this case, it's clear that absolute time is running faster than the clock though because the fabric is still functioning at full speed while the clock is running slow.
Can we eliminate the absolute time that is serving as a key part of the mechanism to coordinate the action? No. The clock that ultimately governs a processor is really the absolute time of the space holding the computer, although the machine will be running slower than that due to us being in a gravity well. But the simulation shouldn't be using our time at all, so we need to eliminate it. We are not allowed to use any of our clocks to run the simulation, but if we remove them, the simulation doesn't function and nothing happens, so we're stuck. How can we have the simulation run without using time to govern the simulation? The simulation would need to simulate time, and then that time would be used to run the simulation, but we can't run the simulation in the first place to get that simulated time running, so the action never starts. In reality, we can't run a simulation without using real time to govern it, although we can simulate an absolute time within a simulation which runs at a different rate from the real absolute time. Having done that, we can pretend that the simulated absolute time is the real one and that our clocks and the real absolute time (whose actual rate we can't determine) are running fast or slow relative to the simulated absolute time, so the simulated absolute time can be treated as if it is the real governing time of all the action. When we slow the action for the clock at B, we're doing so relative to the simulated absolute time. Without that simulated absolute time, what are we slowing the clock at B relative to? The clock at A? What's governing the tick rate of the clock at A if there's no simulated absolute time? How much processor time should we give to running the two clocks? How can we give them amounts of time without having an absolute time to allocate parts of to them? If you systematically eliminate all influence of absolute time from the simulation, it breaks - there's no way to force clocks at A and B to tick at any specific relative rate unless one governs the other, and ultimately there will need to be one clock somewhere that governs all the others to maintain relative rates.
With the real universe it's directly equivalent - clock B is being systematically run slower than clock A, so which clock is governing which? If you're just allowing the speed of functionality of a space fabric (and woe betide you if you don't have one) to run slower when there are more gravitational waves present, then what's it being slowed relative to? There's an undeclared time governing events there, and it's ticking faster than clock B.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 19/12/2018 02:47:07
To help each of us understand the rigor behind each other's posts, I have pointed out that I have no scientific credentials to speak of, other than years of self-learning. As a result, my views, including the ISU model, have evolved from my science forum activity and individual research over the years. Do you want to brief me on your credentials as they relate to your credibility in regard to scientific issues?
Your are being practical, and the idea of expressing my views of cosmology in a simulation that you will look at and consider would be my motivation for investing the time. But I’m reminded of our series of posts, and feel I should refer back to my reply #224, where I posted:
Maybe if I describe a simulation first it will help you construct yours. Let's focus on the time issue first and not worry about absolute space - we should keep things simple and deal with one thing at a time.
My motivation to attempt a simulation of my ideas included the idea that by doing that, it would let you show how it would substantiate your claim that the absolutes would have to creep into it in order to keep the simulation from breaking down.
I just don’t wish to invoke what seems to be an artificial order on my concept of a universe that is as it should be, always has been, and could be no other way (to my layman science enthusiasts way of thinking). Infinite time, space, and energy are unalterable characteristics of the Infinite Spongy Universe model, which equates to my own appeal to authority, lol.
The process of coming to my own conclusions has caused me to inadvertently disregard those hundreds of years of history in regard to the concepts you and I are at odds on. There is plenty of history that addresses your chosen beliefs, and our differences are basic to our different beliefs. Perhaps they can be mutually written it off, as I am inclined to do, as being two different senses of reality, and two different sets of logic that get us to them.
But I can’t forget that it seemed appropriate that I write off our differences as being incompatible and irreconcilable, based on our individual deep seated beliefs, acquired over time, with much contemplation and individual rigor.
When reading the details of reply #227, it wouldn’t surprise me if you have done your own simulations, and that experience would logically carry over into the process of addressing my version of a simulation. So before I dig into the idea of imagining a space containing two locations called A and B within a gravity well (which I have done), and without an actual computer program to assist the simulation, I would have my own approach.
I would describe the ISU version of what you would call the fabric of space, the nature of time, and try to express why I consider the three infinites, space, time, and energy as imperatives. The simulation of my model would simply invoke those infinities as givens; as a starting point that puts aside the logical problems of infinite regress, creeping entropy, finding an explanation for the existence of the universe, dealing with first cause, etc. My “givens” cannot be proven, and aren’t self evident, but my model is derived from them as if they were axiomatic.
That thinking leads me to look back at reply #224, where “incompatible and irreconcilable” were the words that come to mind.
That said, I haven’t given up the idea of knocking heads, and I often consider my ideas to be a compulsion, so I will keep being compulsive whether I work up my own simulation or not, lol. On that note, I’ll do my best to write more in regard to a simulation, on a timely basis, and if you keep interest, we will have some in-depth discussion that will tackle our seemingly incompatible ideas.
Post by: David Cooper on 19/12/2018 23:44:08
Do you want to brief me on your credentials as they relate to your credibility in regard to scientific issues?
Like you, I have gained my understanding of physics as an outsider who did not go through the sausage grinder to be force-fed the standard dogma. That said though, I just assumed that the establishment would have most things right, and the only thing that bothered me was the contradictions that I saw in Einstein's theories of relativity. I investigated those in order to see how the contradictions are handled, assuming that they had an answer to this issue, but I found that they are simply swept under the carpet and ignored by most people. However, the top physicists congregate around a model that does manage to eliminate the contradictions, although at the expense of eliminating real time and losing all possible role for causality. My nearest thing to relevant qualifications are in applying logic, but even there I'm self taught - I studied the field as a child (with a little bit of direction from a mathematician-logician uncle, a younger brother of mathematician Ian Porteous). I ended up taking a path into linguistics though, avoiding university because I had already studied the field from childhood and was far ahead of the game with my work on generative semantics where I had wrapped up a field which other people had abandoned as an impossible task. For most of the last twenty years I've been working on designing and building an AGI system, and that will stand as the best possible kind of qualifications when it's finished, but until it's been demonstrated in public, it counts for nothing. (I'm currently rebuilding a key part of it which will make it inordinately more flexible and powerful, but if you happen to be visiting Aberdeen in the new year, send me a PM and we can meet up - I'll show you a demo of natural language programming that proves it isn't mere vapourware. That same invitation will be open to Chris - I'd be happy for TNS to get a look at this before Click does, but it will look better on TV.)
Quote
My motivation to attempt a simulation of my ideas included the idea that by doing that, it would let you show how it would substantiate your claim that the absolutes would have to creep into it in order to keep the simulation from breaking down.
If you need any help designing or building a simulation for it, just ask - it should be a trivially small program as it doesn't have a lot to do.
Quote
I would describe the ISU version of what you would call the fabric of space, the nature of time, and try to express why I consider the three infinites, space, time, and energy as imperatives. The simulation of my model would simply invoke those infinities as givens; as a starting point that puts aside the logical problems of infinite regress, creeping entropy, finding an explanation for the existence of the universe, dealing with first cause, etc. My “givens” cannot be proven, and aren’t self evident, but my model is derived from them as if they were axiomatic.
Those three infinites are fine with me - they don't interfere with the thing we want to test.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 20/12/2018 01:42:49
Thank you for the interesting bio. I take it you are programming/coding your AGI system on your own? I can see hundreds of hours being invested in something like that, having had the experience writing a stock market “predictive” model in Excel, years ago. It contained and updated daily all the stock price history of the individual S&P 500 stocks, and tracked each stock relative to its 25, 50, and 200 day moving averages. It produced some pretty, multiple color charts, but couldn’t compete with the professional versions, with essentially free data, that were coming on line. Those were the days.
Like you, I have gained my understanding of physics as an outsider who did not go through the sausage grinder to be force-fed the standard dogma. That said though, I just assumed that the establishment would have most things right, and the only thing that bothered me was the contradictions that I saw in Einstein's theories of relativity. I investigated those in order to see how the contradictions are handled, assuming that they had an answer to this issue, but I found that they are simply swept under the carpet and ignored by most people. However, the top physicists congregate around a model that does manage to eliminate the contradictions, although at the expense of eliminating real time and losing all possible role for causality. My nearest thing to relevant qualifications are in applying logic, but even there I'm self taught - I studied the field as a child (with a little bit of direction from a mathematician-logician uncle, a younger brother of mathematician Ian Porteous). I ended up taking a path into linguistics though, avoiding university because I had already studied the field from childhood and was far ahead of the game with my work on generative semantics where I had wrapped up a field which other people had abandoned as an impossible task. For most of the last twenty years I've been working on designing and building an AGI system, and that will stand as the best possible kind of qualifications when it's finished, but until it's been demonstrated in public, it counts for nothing. (I'm currently rebuilding a key part of it which will make it inordinately more flexible and powerful, but if you happen to be visiting Aberdeen in the new year, send me a PM and we can meet up - I'll show you a demo of natural language programming that proves it isn't mere vapourware. That same invitation will be open to Chris - I'd be happy for TNS to get a look at this before Click does, but it will look better on TV.)
Quote
Very kind offer. I think my model is aimed at being more descriptive than it is simulative, but let’s see how our discussion plays out.
If you need any help designing or building a simulation for it, just ask - it should be a trivially small program as it doesn't have a lot to do.
Quote
Good point. I’ll give you some of my thinking about the gravity well. It would seem appropriate to use the inverse square law as it applies to gravity waves in the well. According to my model, gravity waves in the well are emitted by the massive object at the bottom of the well, say the Sun. As the emitted gravity waves ascend the well, the energy they carry would be subject to the inverse square law.
Those three infinites are fine with me - they don't interfere with the thing we want to test.
The Gravity Well Scenario
We could depict the gravity well in terms of a tall ladder, and the ladder might be standing upright on the surface of the Sun. The first rung is at the same height on the ladder as the distance from the Sun to the Earth, because that is approximately one astronomical unit, for talking purposes.
A clock on the bottom rung equates to it being one AU from the surface of the Sun. This set-up will show only tiny differences on clock measurements from rung to rung, but the differences between a clock on the first rung, and on other higher rungs can be enlarged by moving up the ladder.
Because of the invariant laws of nature that are in play, the clock on the top rung will run faster than the clock deep in the well on the bottom rung of the ladder.
To put that in terms of a set of twins, a twin on the top rung will appear to age faster than a twin on the bottom rung, and we can think of the twin on the bottom rung as being in the vicinity of the Earth.
The operative effect is that there is a difference in the acceleration caused by the gravitational force being experienced on the clocks from the Sun’s mass, depending on their position on the ladder.
Let’s go to a Hyper-physics page on the Inverse Square Law
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/isq.html#isqe (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/isq.html#isqe)
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_01_09_17_8_01_40.gif (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_01_09_17_8_01_40.gif)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_01_09_17_8_01_40.gif)
The bottom of the gravity well is at the center of the Sun. The diagram indicates it as the center of the Earth, but we are changing it to the Sun so we can be talking in Astronomical Units as we go up the ladder. The distance from the center of the Sun, to the center of the Earth then, corresponds with r sub E in the diagram, and to the position of the first rung on the ladder.
A gravity wave has gravitational intensity or wave energy density, (according to the ISU concept that all massive objects emit and absorb gravitational waves). The wave energy is emitted by the Sun, and travels up the ladder. The intensity value of g in a gravitational wave decreases as the distance increases, and at the first rung of the ladder, is A in the diagram.
The well shaft has the same dimensions as square A all the way up, no matter how many AU rungs we add. The inverse square law says that the intensity of the portion of the g wave decreases, such that as we double the value of r, i.e., go up one rung, from the first rung to the second rung, the area of the curved plane wave increases by the square of the distance. By taking that step to the second rung, the distance just went from 1r to 2r, so the area of the curved plane wave as shown in the diagram is now 4A. However, the portion of that 4A wave that is within the shaft in our gravity well remains equal to one A. The intensity declines by the inverse square of the increase in the distance, the energy of the wave remains g, so the energy of a wave ascending our gravity well from rung one to rung two is g/4, so it equals 1/4 A at the second rung in our well.
As we go up one more rung, we increase the radius to 3r, the area of the original curved plane wave increases to the square of 3, so the area of the curved plane wave is 9A, and the portion of the wave within our shaft is still one A, and since the energy of the wave remains g, the energy in the wave front as it goes up our well to the third rung is g/9, so it equals 1/9 A.
Did it get all of that right?
How do I relate the rate that the clock ticks, to the local gravitational wave energy density?
As the waves ascend the well, the intensity has decreased by a factor of 9 at rung three vs rung one, and so I think we can say that the clock rate has increased by some factor relative to the wave energy density difference, meaning that the twin on rung three will age faster relative to the rate he aged at rung one. Note that no time has passed, we have simply quantified the value of the gravitational wave energy density at different places up the ladder as a result of the different level of gravitational wave energy density.
Where you are on the ladder governs the rate that you age.
https://www.quora.com/Does-time-really-move-slower-in-outer-space-And-how (https://www.quora.com/Does-time-really-move-slower-in-outer-space-And-how)
Don't be fooled by the link's title, Earth's gravity slows clocks, but the Sun's gravity is greater, and so your position in space relative to the Sun and the Earth, could make a clock in space tick slower in space than on Earth.
Here is the equation from of the above link:
Gravitational time dilation implies that a clock in the gravitational field of a spherically symmetric mass 𝑀, at distance 𝑅
from the center, will be ticking at the square root √ of 1−𝐺𝑀𝑐^2𝑅 times slower,
Where G=Newton’s constant G=6.674×10−11 N·kg–2·m2
is Newton's constant of gravity and 𝑐 is the speed of light (Its exact value is 299,792,458 metres per second.) So if we just take the Earth's gravity into consideration, on the surface
(𝑅≃6370 km)
clocks would be ticking about 0.00000000035 times slower than in "outer space", i.e., far from the Earth.
However, if that clock is in the solar system, its distance from the Sun also matters! On the surface of the Earth, the contribution from the Sun's gravity means that clocks are ticking about 0.00000000494 times slower than in "outer space", far from the Earth and the Sun. So the Sun actually slows clocks down more than ten times as much as the Earth, relative to clocks in deep space. At Venus, a spacecraft's clock would be ticking 0.00000000686 times slower than in "deep space", or about 0.00000000192 times slower than in the vicinity of the Earth.
At average gravity on Earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth) (conventionally, g = 9.80665 m/s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre_per_second_squared)2), a kilogram mass exerts a force of about 9.8 newtons. An average-sized apple exerts about one newton of force, which we measure as the apple's weight.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_(unit)#cite_note-3)1 N = 0.102 kg × 9.80665 m/s2 (0.102 kg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram) = 102 g)The weight of an average adult (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_body_weight#Average_weight_around_the_world) exerts a force of about 608 N.608 N = 62 kg × 9.80665 m/s2 (where 62 kg is the world average adult mass)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_(unit)#cite_note-4)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit)
Here is an article from space.com yesterday, that gives us a good perspective on astronomical units (AU) as they describe finding the most distant object so far, found orbiting the sun:
https://www.space.com/42755-farout-farthest-solar-system-object-discovery.html (https://www.space.com/42755-farout-farthest-solar-system-object-discovery.html)(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_18_12_18_2_46_03.jpeg)https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_18_12_18_2_46_03.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_18_12_18_2_46_03.jpeg)
Post by: David Cooper on 20/12/2018 21:03:21
I take it you are programming/coding your AGI system on your own? I can see hundreds of hours being invested in something like that...
Completely alone. It's hard to add it all up, but I must have put at least forty thousand hours into this (and possibly twice that), though most of that was on linguistics (studying the structures of fifty languages and learning many of them to various levels of competence).
Quote
Did it get all of that right?
It sounds right.
Quote
How do I relate the rate that the clock ticks, to the local gravitational wave energy density?
Not with the formula you supplied further down.
Quote
Gravitational time dilation implies that a clock in the gravitational field of a spherically symmetric mass 𝑀, at distance 𝑅
from the center, will be ticking at the square root √ of 1−𝐺𝑀𝑐^2𝑅 times slower,
Where G=Newton’s constant G=6.674×10−11 N·kg–2·m2
is Newton's constant of gravity and 𝑐 is the speed of light (Its exact value is 299,792,458 metres per second.) So if we just take the Earth's gravity into consideration, on the surface
(𝑅≃6370 km)
clocks would be ticking about 0.00000000035 times slower than in "outer space", i.e., far from the Earth.
I don't like the wording "0.00000000035 times slower". I think that number should be subtracted from 1, then the resulting number n should be used to say that a clock sitting on the surface of the Earth is ticking n times as fast as a theoretical clock completely out of a gravity well, which is almost the same speed - it is hardly slowed at all.
Let me check the numbers though. Mass of Earth = 5.972 × 10^24 (kg), G=6.674×10^−11, radius of Earth = 6,371 (km). Wikipedia gives root(1-((2GM)/(rc^2))) for this, and it says:-
Quote
"To illustrate then, without accounting for the effects of rotation, proximity to Earth's gravitational well will cause a clock on the planet's surface to accumulate around 0.0219 fewer seconds over a period of one year than would a distant observer's clock."
So, we have root(1-((2 x 6.674x10^-11 x 5.972x10^24)/(6371 x 299792458^2))
I make that root(1-(7.971x10^14/5.726x10^20))
and that simplifies to 0.99999993039, or to 0.999999999303923 if the radius is meant to use metres rather than km - Wikipedia doesn't say. There are 31556736 seconds in a year, and if I subtract 0.0219 seconds from that and then divide by 31556736, I get 0.9999999993, so that confirms that r should be measured in metres and not km.
So, a clock in the lab here ticks 0.9999999993 times for every tick of a theoretical clock completely outside of a gravity well (and stationary).
[The figure you took from Quora of 0.00000000035 appears to include an error somewhere, but it's exactly half the 0.0000000007 figure that we get by taking 0.9999999993 away from 1. Let's crunch the formula from the post at Quora just to see what it actually gives us: root(1-(GM/c^2*r)) --> 0.999999999395981. Not a billion miles off, but quite different - probably an error in the equation, so it would be best to avoid using it.]
We should calculate all our numbers using root(1-((2GM)/(rc^2))) then. It's worth investing in a calculator with multiple memories so that you can store 2G in one and c^2 in another, as well as temporarily storing M and r values to make it easier to use them when sticking them into the equation.
Post by: Halc on 21/12/2018 01:53:22
So, a clock in the lab here ticks 0.9999999993 times for every tick of a theoretical clock completely outside of a gravity well (and stationary).Completely outside Earth's well. Earth is a very small fish in a huge pond. That value is not 'completely outside of a gravity well'. You lost track of the condition upon which the value was computed, which was "Considering only Earth's gravity".
Bogie got at least one more fish included:
However, if that clock is in the solar system, its distance from the Sun also matters! On the surface of the Earth, the contribution from the Sun's gravity means that clocks are ticking about 0.00000000494 times slower than in "outer space", far from the Earth and the Sun. So the Sun actually slows clocks down more than ten times as much as the Earth, relative to clocks in deep space.Removing just one more object is still not 'deep space'. Just like the sun as 10x the dilation effect here as does nearby Earth, the sun's effect is dwarfed by the additional mass of what you're labeling 'deep space'. There is no such thing because it really is impossible to get anywhere close to being out of that well, even between galactic superclusters.
I point this out since you seem to be attempting to compute what the absolute dilation factor of local clocks is, and you're considering only some of the least significant components to that answer.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/12/2018 02:21:11
Post by: David Cooper on 21/12/2018 21:32:08
So, a clock in the lab here ticks 0.9999999993 times for every tick of a theoretical clock completely outside of a gravity well (and stationary).Completely outside Earth's well. Earth is a very small fish in a huge pond. That value is not 'completely outside of a gravity well'. You lost track of the condition upon which the value was computed, which was "Considering only Earth's gravity".
I was obviously leaving out all the extra slowing caused by the Earth being inside other gravity wells. Let's check the slowing for some of those:-
Mass of sun = 1.989 × 10^30 kg. Distance to sun = 150 million km. So, root(1-((2 x 6.674×10^−11 x 1.989x10^30)/(1.5x10^11 x 299792458^2))) gives us 0.9999999902 for our place in the sun's gravity well.
Mass of our galaxy estimated at 960 billion times mass of sun. Distance to galactic centre = 1x10^18m. So, root(1-((2 x 6.674×10^−11 x 1.90944x10^42)/(1x10^18 x 299792458^2))) gives us 0.9985810763 for our place in the galaxy's gravity well.
Multiplying our three results together (Earth, sun and galaxy) should give the total of that slowing: 0.9985810658, and that's hardly any different from the galaxy-induced slowing on its own.
Every other galaxy will add more slowing, so it would certainly be worth calculating the impact of M31 on us, and then a distant galaxy (with the insignificant result of that then multiplied by itself a millions or billion times):-
Let's just assume the same mass for M31 as our own galaxy to save Google the effort, and we'll call the distance two million lightyears = 9.461e+15 x 2,000,000: root(1-((2 x 6.674×10^−11 x 1.90944x10^42)/(1x10^18 x 299792458^2))), so that's 0.9999999251 - also a stronger effect on us than the sun's gravity well.
I'll pick a relatively close distance for a distant galaxy just to get some sort of idea of the strength of the effect over distance, so a billion lightyears away and with the same mass as our galaxy gives us 0.99999999985013, but a million galaxies of that size at that distance converts that into 0.99985014. This suggests that the total slowing from all other galaxies in the universe might cause something in the region of as much slowing here as our own galaxy does, but more importantly, that extra slowing will apply all through the deepest, emptiest parts of space. Even so, we are still only talking about a clock in deep space ticking slower than a theoretical clock completely outside of a gravity well in such a way as to fail to record perhaps 1/1000 of the time that has actually passed, which is one second missed for every 15 minutes of time. Of course, my numbers are based on a wild guess about galaxy distribution and distances - there may be emptier parts of space where you can reduce the effect, and the effect may be stronger here than my numbers suggest, but they shouldn't be many magnitudes out.
Quote
Removing just one more object is still not 'deep space'. Just like the sun as 10x the dilation effect here as does nearby Earth, the sun's effect is dwarfed by the additional mass of what you're labeling 'deep space'. There is no such thing because it really is impossible to get anywhere close to being out of that well, even between galactic superclusters.
The important thing here is to get some kind of feel for how much a clock in deep space is slowed, and it appears to be a small fraction slower than a theoretical clock outside of a gravity well, somewhere in the region one tick in a thousand being missed. Even one in a hundredth would be a small amount slower than the ideal clock.
Quote
I point this out since you seem to be attempting to compute what the absolute dilation factor of local clocks is, and you're considering only some of the least significant components to that answer.
For the simulation we were discussing, we can assume an empty universe with the exception of a single planet. However, there would be no harm in throwing a few billion galaxies into the ring to provide more slowing while we keep our planet in a vast, empty zone.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/12/2018 02:46:58
There are a few of things about the simulation that we could discuss, to see if there is agreement on them before we use them.
One is invoking the inverse square law to explain the energy density at various rungs of the ladder as the g wave ascends, as is depicted in the Inverse Square diagram. Is it agreeable that we use the inverse square law to quantify the decline in intensity of the gravitational force as we go up the ladder?
Also, note that I am equating the change in intensity of g with the change in relative energy density of the wave as the radius increases. That means that at each regularly spaced rung, the energy density will change predictably.
I’ll repost the link and diagram for convenience:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/isq.html#isqe (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/isq.html#isqe)
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_01_09_17_8_01_40.gif (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_01_09_17_8_01_40.gif)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_01_09_17_8_01_40.gif)
Also, in doing the simulation, we agreed we have to be watching for where the absolutes creep in. The equations used in the calculations when we apply the inverse square law include various SI units of measure, for mass, distance, time, etc. The use of SI units is one place where we should be careful about not letting absolutes creep in. It is hard to communicate without them, but standard units of measure are tied to invariant values and strictly defined conditions in how they are established, but does that mean they are tied to absolutes of nature?
We will be using them when we do the calculations in order to help quantify the values of the gravitational wave energy at various rungs of the ladder, so can we stipulate that their use should not be construed as some absolutes being invoked?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/12/2018 12:17:49
A few paragraphs to introduce my thinking about what we will be simulating. Halc’s point, one that doesn’t evaded David Cooper’s thinking or mine, is that the gravity wells in the real world surround every massive object in all directions, so a simulation of one gravity well in one direction using a ladder analogy is quite simplistic and for discussion purposes, but is only a slice of the real world.
The Gravitational Wave Energy Density Profile of Space
In the ISU model, instead of the fabric of spacetime, there is what is called the gravitational wave energy density profile of space. Conceptually, each point in space contains gravitational wave energy being carried there by all of the gravitational waves arriving at that point. Therefore, each point in space has a net gravitational wave energy density value, consisting of the energy being carried by all of the gravitational waves arriving at that point, form all directions (each directional vector, many ladders, lol). Since the energy nets out directionally, the energy value at each point in space has a directional imbalance which “points” toward the net highest source of inflowing waves from all directions. (In my suggested approach to this first simulation, the ladder points in one such direction, toward the center of gravity of the Sun, from any rung on the ladder. Details about the center of gravity, the point source of the directional forces, etc., can be worked out later).
According to the ISU model, The Sun, and all massive objects, are composed of particles (more appropriately called wave-particles because in the ISU, particles with mass are composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments, but that is not yet a factor that affects the simulation).
Being composed of wave energy means that they “contain” an amount of wave energy relative to their respective mass, and they absorb and emit wave energy and tend to maintain their mass, their relative position and motion. (The g wave front rising in our gravity well is an example of a directionally out flowing gravitational wave energy component of the mass of the Sun that is ascending the ladder in our gravity well.)
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/12/2018 13:34:47
Different models. In GR, the presence of the sun curves spacetime; the curvature of spacetime represents a huge energy potential. In the ISU model, I think of that potential in terms of the energy it would take to tell objects how to move relative to that potential. I find that energy in the spherically out flowing gravitational waves.
Apologies for not being familiar with this ISU model, but you seem to be mixing gravitational waves with gravity. The sun for instance puts out very little in the way of gravitational waves (The moon possibly does more), so your direction pointer is not going to point to the sun. Perhaps ISU uses the term 'gravitational wave' to mean something else, in which case I wonder what it calls what everybody else calls 'gravitational waves'? The latter carries energy, probably in quanta, and at the speed of light. The gravity waves generated by Earth can be expressed as about 200 watts, enough to power a few light bulbs.
How to you explain mechanically, how mass curves spacetime?
In the ISU for example, a directional imbalance between the net inflow and out flow of gravitational wave energy causes relative motion because a wave-particle or object will move in the direction of the net highest gravitational wave energy source. For the simulation, that direction is toward the center of gravity of the Sun. (Obviously, as David Cooper pointed out, our simulation disregards a lot of reality, lol.)
Post by: David Cooper on 22/12/2018 22:22:12
My calculation worked on a different tack. Sure, the local density of matter here is larger than average. There's a galaxy here. But at some scale, that density is relatively homogeneous. There is this much matter in a region of radius 0.95 BLY to 1.05 BLY, and its radius is 1 BLY, and so you can compute the gravity impact X of that shell of material. The next shell has more mass (by R²) but less gravity (by 1/R²) so that shell should have the same gravitational well as the former. They're all the same, so you need to keep adding them forever, even the shells beyond the event horizon. (I say adding because I'm adding negative gravitational potential, not multiplying dilations are you are doing).
I can see now that there could be a lot more slowing than I suggested. If you keep adding them forever (or I keep multiplying forever), then we'll end up with all clocks stopped completely, so the universe wouldn't behave in the way that it clearly does. Material that's out of sight and which will never become visible to us due to the expansion of space between us is presumably unable to act on us gravitationally either, so there should be a finite limit to the slowing even if there's an infinite amount of stuff out there.
(This slowing, when applied to a light clock, reveals a slowing of the speed of light, so whatever our fastest ticking clock does in the way of running slow, that directly reflects the maximum speed of light in the universe, and it will be slower than c.)
Quote
It gets more complicated with big distances because relativistic effects come into play. Things get more compressed with distance, so the shells mass starts going up with distance, and I'm not sure if that increases our calculation that seemed to be an infinite series of constants adding up to infinite negative potential. I've heard that said total potential exactly cancels the positive potential of all mass and energy everywhere, so that puts a limit on my infinite series.
Are you sure it's because of relativistic effects? Is it not more dense further away because we're looking back in time at less expanded parts of space? Whatever the case, we run out of visible galaxies and end up seeing the big bang (reduced to microwaves).
Quote
QuoteThe important thing here is to get some kind of feel for how much a clock in deep space is slowed, and it appears to be a small fraction slower than a theoretical clock outside of a gravity well, somewhere in the region one tick in a thousand being missed. Even one in a hundredth would be a small amount slower than the ideal clock.I got a lot more than that. Is there a flaw in my reasoning? Not exactly claiming authority here. I just worked that out from some limited assumptions.
I think your approach is right - each band out to 13.8 billion lightyears should be taken into account, each having more impact than the one before it due to that extra density. It's a matter of doing lots of googling to find out the distribution of matter at different distances and crunching the numbers. I don't have time to go into that at the moment, but I'll put it on the to-do list.
Post by: David Cooper on 22/12/2018 23:12:11
One is invoking the inverse square law to explain the energy density at various rungs of the ladder as the g wave ascends, as is depicted in the Inverse Square diagram. Is it agreeable that we use the inverse square law to quantify the decline in intensity of the gravitational force as we go up the ladder?
It's approximately right, but there's a complicating factor which was discovered with the Mercury anomaly and which becomes more significant the deeper you go into a gravity well. I haven't explored this in any detail as most of the physics I've explored relates to special relativity. The simulation I've suggested we make doesn't need to be precise though - it's sufficient for it to have clocks ticking at different heights in a gravity well without needing to care about putting figures to the depth, because all we need to do is compare clock A with clock B while clock B is slowed with whatever energy density you declare to be present there.
Quote
Also, in doing the simulation, we agreed we have to be watching for where the absolutes creep in. The equations used in the calculations when we apply the inverse square law include various SI units of measure, for mass, distance, time, etc. The use of SI units is one place where we should be careful about not letting absolutes creep in. It is hard to communicate without them, but standard units of measure are tied to invariant values and strictly defined conditions in how they are established, but does that mean they are tied to absolutes of nature?
You have to use some units, and established standards are as good as any because you can convert to any alternative units just by multiplying by a conversion factor.
Quote
We will be using them when we do the calculations in order to help quantify the values of the gravitational wave energy at various rungs of the ladder, so can we stipulate that their use should not be construed as some absolutes being invoked?
Just use any values you like and if they invoke any absolutes that aren't supposed to exist in the model, that will become clear at some point.
Quote
How to you explain mechanically, how mass curves spacetime?
And if everything's down in a gravity well, what are the highest parts lower than?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/12/2018 22:39:35
David’s simulation idea in Reply #227
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75389.msg563028#msg563028 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75389.msg563028#msg563028)
I wanted to go back to your Reply #227 to discuss if and how we can get our heads together.
Your gravitational wave idea, if it can produce the right numbers, should do just as well as any other mechanism, though I have to wonder where these gravitational waves are going to come from.
Your first question was wondering about where these gravitational waves are going to come from.
I know that you haven’t had a chance to familiarize yourself with my Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model, and I also know how that name sounds, but I’m sticking with it because it is quite descriptive; you would have to have an in depth understanding of the ISU to see how perfect the name is.
The ISU is not General Relativity. Because it is not General Relativity, in order to understand the ISU, you have to resist the temptation of see it from the perspective of curved spacetime. Spacetime, and curved spacetime, is not a feature of the ISU. Instead, all space is filled with gravitational wave energy, coming and going in all directions, at all points in space.The energy that must be employed to curve space in GR, is there in the ISU in the form of gravitational waves that carry energy.
I know you can’t imagine how those gravitational waves could get there, because based on general relativity learning, massive objects in space just sit there like inert mute objects, unless they move relative to other massive objects. In GR, it is that relative motion caused by the curvature of spacetime that triggers the emission of the gravitational wave energy that has been detected by LIGO. And in GR, the conception is that the objects emitting any meaningful, detectible gravitational waves, have to be very massive and their orbital motion must be at an extreme velocity, like two in-swirling black holes. That is not a description of the source of gravitational waves in my model, or how they are emitted by mass in the ISU model.
I think of gravitational wave energy on the basis that all mass has two components; inflowing and out flowing gravitational waves. That is a different and drastic idea to someone immersed in GR and curved spacetime, but gravitational wave energy replaces curved spacetime while leaving the same, very precise, mathematical equations to describe and predict it, the EFEs. But the ISU model comes with wave mechanics that describe “how” objects follow curved paths through space, as they are always observed to do. There is no mechanics that describe the “how” in GR, but there is a “how” in the ISU.
In the ISU, there is a mechanism for how that works. Einstein’s field equations are very precise, and that fact is why General Relativity won the day, back in the early 1900s, by correctly predicting the perihelion of the planet Mercury, But that success and superior reputation is based on a mathematical explanation of how mass curves spacetime, in spite of the fact that there is no real mechanism that you can point to. That mechanism is sorted out in the ISU; the ISU invokes the mathematics of the EFEs, and explains the mechanics on the basis of the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.
The answer to your first question would then be, the gravitational waves come from the ever present and ever changing gravitational wave energy density profile of space. Everywhere in space, there are gravitational waves coming at you at the speed of light from all directions, from an infinite history of the two components of mass, inflowing an out flowing gravitational wave energy.
Quote
If you have a clock sitting on a static planet in deep space, the clock must be slowed by the planet's mass, but there's nothing in the planet putting out gravitational waves because none of it is moving.That statement is based on your experience and learning of General Relativity (and SR). When you think of the presence of mass being maintained in space by the continual functioning of the two ISU components of mass, the inflow and out flow of gravitational wave energy, you then put that in place of the concept that there is nothing in the planet putting out gravitational waves. The planet, and all objects with mass are composed of wave-particles, and wave particles are composed of inflowing and out flowing wave energy convergences. Each convergence has a hint of mass.
Quote
It would need to be creating energy out of nothing all the time to radiate off as gravitational waves, …Not in the ISU model, as explained. The energy is always there in space, coming and going in all directions at all times, from an infinite history of the process of inflow and out flow that continually refreshes the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.
Quote
…but black holes clearly don't do that - they only produce detectable waves when orbiting each other in the final stages before merger, and while they're doing that, any object further out which is orbiting the pair of black holes on a circular path will have its clock tick at a near-constant rate while the strength of gravitational waves passing through it changes radically.That thinking comes from your familiarity with General Relativity, and the simulation that we are looking at producing comes from a different model of cosmology called the Infinite Spongy Universe model.
Quote
However, it doesn't matter here whether your theory is broken or not - all that matters is that you're somehow producing numbers that generate the right amount of slowing of clocks, so if that needs a constant supply of gravitational waves passing through a clock to slow it, you can have that.I hope you can make the adjustments in your thinking that are necessary to talk about a simulation from the perspective of the ISU model. You have to disregard your own thinking, and go with mine to do a simulation of my model.
Note that I have explained where the gravitational waves that are depicted in the inverse square law diagrams, and that I describe as filling the gravity well at a declining intensity as you go up the ladder, so do you see now where the waves are coming from in the ISU?
If so, the you have the answer to the question:
Quote from: bogie
How do you explain mechanically, how mass curves spacetime?
Quote from: David Cooper
And if everything's down in a gravity well, what are the highest parts lower than?In the ISU, an infinite universe, the ladder in the gravity well is defined to be of infinite length, and if, for purposes of the simulation, you are using a single massive object as the bottom of the well, then the higher parts of the ladder are lower than the parts above them, on an infinitely long ladder.
Post by: Halc on 24/12/2018 06:10:32
I can see now that there could be a lot more slowing than I suggested.I'm glad you saw the conclusion I came to. Not sure if there was some factor I missed that invalidated the conclusion.
Quote
If you keep adding them forever (or I keep multiplying forever), then we'll end up with all clocks stopped completely, so the universe wouldn't behave in the way that it clearly does.There are plenty of examples of one observer being stopped relative to another. That is entirely different than actually being stopped. An example is the two guys at either end of my long ship, but the universe behaves quite normally for the 'stopped' guy, so I disagree with your wording above.
I may be stopped relative to an absolute observer, but we know there is nowhere this absolute observer (whose watch runs at real time) can be, so my relative speed to this nonexistent reference is of little concern to me.
Quote
Material that's out of sight and which will never become visible to us due to the expansion of space between us is presumably unable to act on us gravitationally either,I disagree with this one. It assumes gravity travels, and at light speed. The specific matter attracting us doesn't exist except in superposition, but the gravity it exerts very much is there.
Quote
(This slowing, when applied to a light clock,A light clock is a clock, no different than any other.
Quote
Are you sure it's because of relativistic effects? Is it not more dense further away because we're looking back in time at less expanded parts of space?I am talking about the mass that is, not the picture we see of the past. This isn't about observation. Those galaxies are length compressed as is the space between them, so they're closer together from our reference frame, the frame being dilated by this distant mass.
Quote
Whatever the case, we run out of visible galaxies and end up seeing the big bang (reduced to microwaves).The big bang is not happening over there. That image is billions of years old. Earth is pulled by the moon where it is now, not by where it was a second ago (where we observe it). This is pretty easily demonstrated.
Quote
I think your approach is right - each band out to 13.8 billion lightyears should be taken into account, each having more impact than the one before it due to that extra density. It's a matter of doing lots of googling to find out the distribution of matter at different distances and crunching the numbers. I don't have time to go into that at the moment, but I'll put it on the to-do list.I see no reason to stop the bands at the Hubble radius.
Post by: David Cooper on 24/12/2018 20:39:50
The ISU is not General Relativity. Because it is not General Relativity, in order to understand the ISU, you have to resist the temptation of see it from the perspective of curved spacetime. Spacetime, and curved spacetime, is not a feature of the ISU. Instead, all space is filled with gravitational wave energy, coming and going in all directions, at all points in space.The energy that must be employed to curve space in GR, is there in the ISU in the form of gravitational waves that carry energy.
In LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) there is no bending of Spacetime either. Something slows the speed of light in the vicinity of mass (and at a great distance too), but that thing that causes the slowing has not been identified. The slowing of the speed of light to different degrees in different places causes light to follow curved paths which match up to the paths taken in GR. If matter is thought of as being made of waves moving like light, that matter would be accelerated towards "sources" of gravity in the right manner, and the slowing of functionality which results from greater depth in a gravity well exactly matches the amount of kinetic energy apparently created out of nothing by the inward acceleration - the energy was actually there already in the higher speed of functionality of the material which is lost as the acceleration occurs. ISU sounds as if it could be a version of LET in which a mechanism has been proposed for the slowing of light. That proposed mechanism sounds wrong as it depends on continual creation of energy, but we don't have any good explanation yet for the mechanism, so there's no harm in exploring options. (Of course, with dark energy there appears to be a continual generation of new energy too, but that could be a mere illusion of accelerated expansion which we would see if there's a slowing of functionality of observers as space expands - the expansion could be slowing while our functionality slows faster.)
Quote
That is not a description of the source of gravitational waves in my model, or how they are emitted by mass in the ISU model.[/font]
Your gravitational waves appear to be gravity being propagated as waves rather than the gravitational waves that LIGO detects, but you appear to lump them together as the same thing. I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that gravity is some kind of wave radiated off from all matter and energy and which loses strength as it spreads out - the energy of this radiation could perhaps be of a kind that adds up to nothing, but which slows the speed of light in the part of space it's passing through, and the more such waves are passing through a bit of space, the more clocks will be slowed there. That is a potential mechanism behind LET. One possible problem with it is how those waves are emitted from black holes, but maybe these waves aren't slowed in the way that light is - they may be free to spread out at c in all directions. However, in a system with orbiting things moving at relativistic speed, gravitational attraction has to be adjusted along with everything else in order to fit with the phenomenon of relativity (not any specific theory of relativity, but the actual mechanism of relativity itself). The manner in which these waves spread out must also conform to the rules of length contraction and aberration. Furthermore, the speed of light is slowed relative to that moving system and not relative to space itself (when considering the component of slowing generated by local gravity) - it's particularly important to recognise this point, because without that you would enable light to escape from the event horizon at the back of a moving black hole (and thereby get out into deep space). That's why I think the mechanism for slowing light is that matter is surrounded by a dark-matter like extension of matter which spreads out through space, diminishing in density as it gets further from the centre of the matter, and this acts as a medium to slow light (while it's also impossible to suck this extended part of matter into a black hole).
What we both agree on though is that there is something there at any point in space which slows light below it's theoretical maximum, and the more of that something is there, the more light will be slowed in that place. The actual mechanism is unimportant for the simulation - the simulation will fit with whatever the real mechanism is.
Quote
That statement is based on your experience and learning of General Relativity (and SR).
No - it's based on LIGO detecting gravitational waves and that kind of wave not being compatible with what you're calling gravitational waves because the ones that LIGO detects do not come off non-accelerating bodies, whereas you need just as many of your waves to come off a non-acceleration body as an accelerating one of the same mass, and LIGO shows that you don't get that - it only detects the last moments leading into merger, and then the gravitational waves stop completely.
Quote
When you think of the presence of mass being maintained in space by the continual functioning of the two ISU components of mass, the inflow and out flow of gravitational wave energy, you then put that in place of the concept that there is nothing in the planet putting out gravitational waves. The planet, and all objects with mass are composed of wave-particles, and wave particles are composed of inflowing and out flowing wave energy convergences. Each convergence has a hint of mass.
You may be able to find a mechanism for some kind of wave coming off matter all the time, but it doesn't look to me as if it can be the same kind of wave as the ones LIGO detects. Perhaps those are the same kind though, just insignificant due to their relative scarcity and high peak strength, so most of the slowing of functionality could be driven by an astronomical number of gravitational waves of infinitesimal magnitude. I don't think it can be the same mechanism though, because the LIGO ones are carrying energy lost by orbital decay, whereas the waves you need to be coming off all matter all the time would have to emit energy without any such decay, meaning the energy has to be taken from somewhere else. None of this need worry us though when it comes to a simulation designed to explore time - the viability of the slowing mechanism is not important for that, and the simulation will necessarily be compatible with whatever the real mechanism is.
Quote
Not in the ISU model, as explained. The energy is always there in space, coming and going in all directions at all times, from an infinite history of the process of inflow and out flow that continually refreshes the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.
You have more of it in some places than others, and it radiates out from places with higher energy density into areas with less. That leaves you with a constant depletion of that energy in the areas of higher energy density which means they are not getting back as much energy as they are putting out.
Quote
That thinking comes from your familiarity with General Relativity, and the simulation that we are looking at producing comes from a different model of cosmology called the Infinite Spongy Universe model.
I don't think through the lens of GR (or SR). I use LET, and LET is so close to your model that they may in most respects be the same model.
Quote
I hope you can make the adjustments in your thinking that are necessary to talk about a simulation from the perspective of the ISU model. You have to disregard your own thinking, and go with mine to do a simulation of my model.
I don't need to disregard my own thinking to go along with yours - this part that we're disagreeing on is unimportant to the simulation. You have a proposed mechanism which could fill a mechanistic gap in LET. There are other proposed way of filling that mechanistic gap, but all of them have the same impact on the speed of light by slowing it down (as a light clock would demonstrate directly).
Quote
Note that I have explained where the gravitational waves that are depicted in the inverse square law diagrams, and that I describe as filling the gravity well at a declining intensity as you go up the ladder, so do you see now where the waves are coming from in the ISU?
There is no problem with that part, regardless of any difficulties that may apply to generating them.
Quote
If so, the you have the answer to the question:Quote from: bogieHow do you explain mechanically, how mass curves spacetime?Quote from: David CooperAnd if everything's down in a gravity well, what are the highest parts lower than?In the ISU, an infinite universe, the ladder in the gravity well is defined to be of infinite length, and if, for purposes of the simulation, you are using a single massive object as the bottom of the well, then the higher parts of the ladder are lower than the parts above them, on an infinitely long ladder.
I was adding a question of my own to your question, so both were aimed at fans of GR, though not in any expectation of them being answered - it's just about making them think.
Post by: David Cooper on 24/12/2018 21:47:12
There are plenty of examples of one observer being stopped relative to another. That is entirely different than actually being stopped.
It is not different from it actually being stopped. In any example where one is stopped relative to another, that one is stopped 100%.
Quote
An example is the two guys at either end of my long ship, but the universe behaves quite normally for the 'stopped' guy, so I disagree with your wording above.
Neither of them is stopped unless one is moving at c, and if he's moving at c, his functionality (apart from his ability to move at c) is 100% halted.
Quote
QuoteMaterial that's out of sight and which will never become visible to us due to the expansion of space between us is presumably unable to act on us gravitationally either,I disagree with this one. It assumes gravity travels, and at light speed. The specific matter attracting us doesn't exist except in superposition, but the gravity it exerts very much is there.
If you're right, then it puts a maximum limit on how much matter exists out of sight. Any more than that maximum and all functionality is halted, preventing anything from happening at all beyond the expansion of space (with no observers in the universe being able to recognise it or anything else as happening).
Quote
A light clock is a clock, no different than any other.
It directly illustrates the slowing of light. What we call the "speed of light" is a speed that light can never reach, and it's worth just taking a moment to recognise that. When people talk about measuring the speed of light and provide the value c for it, they are always failing to measure correctly the speed of the light they're measuring, and the more you're right about how much slowing there is, the further out they are in their assertions.
Quote
I am talking about the mass that is, not the picture we see of the past. This isn't about observation. Those galaxies are length compressed as is the space between them, so they're closer together from our reference frame, the frame being dilated by this distant mass.
Well, the gravitational pull on us should be coming from the past action there when things were closer together, so there could be two effects both increasing density over distance. However, in LET with an added recognition of the absolute frame shifting over distance such that all galaxies are relatively stationary relative to the local fabric of space (which is what would happen with an expanding space fabric), there should be no significant length contraction acting on them or the distances between them.
Quote
QuoteWhatever the case, we run out of visible galaxies and end up seeing the big bang (reduced to microwaves).The big bang is not happening over there. That image is billions of years old. Earth is pulled by the moon where it is now, not by where it was a second ago (where we observe it). This is pretty easily demonstrated.
We are seeing back towards the big bang in every direction, but we're just seeing radiation from that time that's been travelling ever since. My point is that any gravity acting on us from matter that's too far away for light ever to reach us from there due to the expansion should be acting from the singularity 13.8 billion years ago rather than from where that material is now - it has not had the opportunity to "bend Spacetime" here since the big bang (and it didn't have any opportunity to do so before the big bang either, which is why I think it likely has no impact on us at all). With both GR and LET, the gravity wells of Earth and moon both move with the body they're associated with, and the gravitational pull is instantly applied by the local part of one body's gravity well to the other body. When you accelerate the moon, half a month later you will still have the moon's gravity well keeping pace with the moon very closely, but distant parts of the well must lag behind as they adjust to try to keep up - that adjustment should propagate at the speed of light, which means that distant objects affected by their part of the moon's gravity well are effectively reacting to what the moon did long ago rather than what it's doing now (although they are reacting instantly to the local part of the moon's gravity well (local to these distant objects; not local to the moon).
Post by: Halc on 24/12/2018 23:18:01
For instance from an accelerating frame of 1G a little over a light year from me, I am stopped, but it bothers me not the least. The experience is the same as falling into a uniform-field black hole. Things behind me do not exist to the frame I just described.Quote from: HalcThere are plenty of examples of one observer being stopped relative to another. That is entirely different than actually being stopped.It is not different from it actually being stopped. In any example where one is stopped relative to another, that one is stopped 100%.
So I find it a bit of a fault with your view that you think otherwise. You need to solve the problem that you apparently experience infinite absolute dilation, and I don't need to do that since I don't posit a time flow.
That's actually an interesting argument against flowing time. I should bring it up in a philosophy thread somewhere.
Quote
Nobody is moving at c in that example.Quote from: HalcAn example is the two guys at either end of my long ship, but the universe behaves quite normally for the 'stopped' guy, so I disagree with your wording above.Neither of them is stopped unless one is moving at c, and if he's moving at c,
You even agreed with that. It is the example of trying to move the long ship a finite distance in minimal time, except in this example, I don't turn off the forward thrust after a while.
Quote
If you're right, then it puts a maximum limit on how much matter exists out of sight.OK, you're trying to save your view by discarding the Copernican principle. I was more hoping you would show me that I wasn't right. I just figured that out myself. It isn't an argument that I've seen asserted by physicists. Why not? I bet there is something wrong with it.
Any more than that maximum and all functionality is halted, preventing anything from happening at all beyond the expansion of space (with no observers in the universe being able to recognise it or anything else as happening).
Quote
I am talking about the mass that is, not the picture we see of the past. This isn't about observation. Those galaxies are length compressed as is the space between them, so they're closer together from our reference frame, the frame being dilated by this distant mass.
Quote
Well, the gravitational pull on us should be coming from the past action there when things were closer together,Again, this assume gravity travels at some speed. It doesn't. It is a field, not information. You can show that the field from distant mass must be completely uniform, but that mass must exist. It comes from objects in no particular state (unmeasured objects), so they cannot produce anything but a perfectly uniform field. QM says that more than does relativity.
Quote
so there could be two effects both increasing density over distance. However, in LET with an added recognition of the absolute frame shifting over distance such that all galaxies are relatively stationary relative to the local fabric of space (which is what would happen with an expanding space fabric), there should be no significant length contraction acting on them or the distances between them.I have a hard time arguing with that point, so I didn't work in length dilation into my calculation. Inertial frames are only locally valid, so one gets on thin ice with arguments that depend on things like density dilation at vast distances.
Quote
With both GR and LET, the gravity wells of Earth and moon both move with the body they're associated with, and the gravitational pull is instantly applied by the local part of one body's gravity well to the other body. When you accelerate the moon, half a month later you will still have the moon's gravity well keeping pace with the moon very closely, but distant parts of the well must lag behind as they adjust to try to keep up - that adjustment should propagate at the speed of light, which means that distant objects affected by their part of the moon's gravity well are effectively reacting to what the moon did long ago rather than what it's doing nowCorrect. For objects to which the moon exists, acceleration of the moon is information, and that must travel at c. But you are describing gravity waves now, and gravity waves do no reach us from objects beyond the event horizon. Gravity field from it all still exists, perfectly uniform beyond a certain distance.
Post by: David Cooper on 25/12/2018 20:08:11
For instance from an accelerating frame of 1G a little over a light year from me, I am stopped, but it bothers me not the least.
Due to the change in which frame's the absolute frame at that distance, you are not stopped by the action far away. If you were stopped though, you wouldn't be bothered in the least because you wouldn't be functioning and it would be impossible for you to do anything.
Quote
The experience is the same as falling into a uniform-field black hole. Things behind me do not exist to the frame I just described.
If you fall into a black hole, your functionality is stopped and any idea that it continues is just a fiction that comes out of applying a broken model.
Quote
You need to solve the problem that you apparently experience infinite absolute dilation, and I don't need to do that since I don't posit a time flow.
By not having any time flow, you have no causality, converting all the apparent causality into infinite luck instead, aka magic.
Quote
That's actually an interesting argument against flowing time. I should bring it up in a philosophy thread somewhere.
It merely reveals that you're using a broken model.
Quote
Nobody is moving at c in that example.
You even agreed with that. It is the example of trying to move the long ship a finite distance in minimal time, except in this example, I don't turn off the forward thrust after a while.
If no one's moving at c, why do you think one of them would be stopped?
Quote
OK, you're trying to save your view by discarding the Copernican principle. I was more hoping you would show me that I wasn't right. I just figured that out myself. It isn't an argument that I've seen asserted by physicists. Why not? I bet there is something wrong with it.
How is it discarding the Copernican principle?
Quote
Again, this assume gravity travels at some speed. It doesn't. It is a field, not information. You can show that the field from distant mass must be completely uniform, but that mass must exist. It comes from objects in no particular state (unmeasured objects), so they cannot produce anything but a perfectly uniform field. QM says that more than does relativity.
It still needs time to set up that field, and it hasn't had that time. That setting up propagates at c.
Quote
But you are describing gravity waves now, and gravity waves do no reach us from objects beyond the event horizon. Gravity field from it all still exists, perfectly uniform beyond a certain distance.
There is a delay in setting up a field - it is not done instantaneously across any distance. If you could accelerate a star to relativistic speed, the shape of its gravity well would have to length-contract to conform to relativity, but that contraction would take time to happen. Ultimately it would reduce its pull on something distant ahead of it, but that change would not affect that distant object straight away.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/12/2018 15:01:54
In LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) there is no bending of Spacetime either. Something slows the speed of light in the vicinity of mass (and at a great distance too), but that thing that causes the slowing has not been identified. The slowing of the speed of light to different degrees in different places causes light to follow curved paths which match up to the paths taken in GR. If matter is thought of as being made of waves moving like light, that matter would be accelerated towards "sources" of gravity in the right manner, and the slowing of functionality which results from greater depth in a gravity well exactly matches the amount of kinetic energy apparently created out of nothing by the inward acceleration - the energy was actually there already in the higher speed of functionality of the material which is lost as the acceleration occurs.
I don’t see too much comparison between the ISU and LED, so I’m posting a link to the Wiki on LED for comparison:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory)
The reason I’ve never really taken the time to present my layman science enthusiast’s comparison between Lorentz Ether Theory and the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) layman level model is because LET was followed closely by Einstein’s very successful SR and GR which took the spotlight, and so my main comparisons have been between GR and the ISU.
Quote
ISU sounds as if it could be a version of LET in which a mechanism has been proposed for the slowing of light. That proposed mechanism sounds wrong as it depends on continual creation of energy, but we don't have any good explanation yet for the mechanism, so there's no harm in exploring options.
There is no continual creation of energy in the ISU. The continual gravitational wave energy out flow emitted by mass is replaced by the continually inflow of gravitational wave energy absorbed by mass from the gravitation wave energy density of space surrounding it: it is an inflow and out flow, subject to the change in density that exists at and near the particle boundary.
The thinking is that at all points in space, gravitational waves are inflowing from an infinite history of the inflow and out flow from massive objects at all distances. When the inflowing waves are absorbed by mass, the velocity of the inflowing wave decreases because the gravitational wave energy density of mass is so much higher than the gravitational wave energy density of the surrounding space. Conversely, as the gravitational wave energy from within the mass is emitted into surrounding space, the velocity of the gravitational waves increase to the speed of light in that surrounding space medium.
Quote
(Of course, with dark energy there appears to be a continual generation of new energy too, but that could be a mere illusion of accelerated expansion which we would see if there's a slowing of functionality of observers as space expands - the expansion could be slowing while our functionality slows faster.)
…
Your gravitational waves appear to be gravity being propagated as waves rather than the gravitational waves that LIGO detects, but you appear to lump them together as the same thing. I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that gravity is some kind of wave radiated off from all matter and energy and which loses strength as it spreads out - the energy of this radiation could perhaps be of a kind that adds up to nothing, but which slows the speed of light in the part of space it's passing through, and the more such waves are passing through a bit of space, the more clocks will be slowed there.
Good thinking, however:
What I thought LIGO detects was the velocity of light down one arm of the apparatus vs the velocity of light down the other. Any variation sets off the alarm. The chirping is a fluctuating pulse, which is interpreted as the ripples in spacetime caused by the rapid and increasing speed of the two black holes orbiting each other, but you would also get chirping if the system that was emitting ISU gravitational waves from the two individual bodies was those two bodies in an in swirling death spiral.
The key is that the intensity of the radiation must be high enough to trigger LIGO by changing the wave energy density down one arm vs the other. That apparently requires very massive bodies that are being accelerated to relativistic velocities in the death spiral.
Quote
That is a potential mechanism behind LET. One possible problem with it is how those waves are emitted from black holes, but maybe these waves aren't slowed in the way that light is - they may be free to spread out at c in all directions.
...
However, in a system with orbiting things moving at relativistic speed, gravitational attraction has to be adjusted along with everything else in order to fit with the phenomenon of relativity (not any specific theory of relativity, but the actual mechanism of relativity itself). The manner in which these waves spread out must also conform to the rules of length contraction and aberration. Furthermore, the speed of light is slowed relative to that moving system and not relative to space itself (when considering the component of slowing generated by local gravity) - it's particularly important to recognise this point, because without that you would enable light to escape from the event horizon at the back of a moving black hole (and thereby get out into deep space). That's why I think the mechanism for slowing light is that matter is surrounded by a dark-matter like extension of matter which spreads out through space, diminishing in density as it gets further from the centre of the matter, and this acts as a medium to slow light (while it's also impossible to suck this extended part of matter into a black hole).
What we both agree on though is that there is something there at any point in space which slows light below it's theoretical maximum, and the more of that something is there, the more light will be slowed in that place. The actual mechanism is unimportant for the simulation - the simulation will fit with whatever the real mechanism is.
This explanation of the ISU may help. Photons are wave-particles with mass whose gravitational out flow, radiation, is light emitted spherically from the photon mass as the photon travels at the speed of light. The spherical wave front of the emitted light and the photon wave-particle in the ISU traverse space together, but the wave front flattens out and broadens, and so the wave front can go through both slits in a two slit experiment, while the core portion of the photon particle can only go through one slit.
Since in the ISU model light is the outflowing gravitational wave energy from the photon wave particle, and since no light escapes a black hole, the thinking would be that the photons with mass that emit light as their gravitational out flow are emitting the light right there in the black hole where the photons are captured, and so neither the photons nor their radiated light can escape the black hole.
Quote
No - it's based on LIGO detecting gravitational waves and that kind of wave not being compatible with what you're calling gravitational waves because the ones that LIGO detects do not come off non-accelerating bodies, whereas you need just as many of your waves to come off a non-acceleration body as an accelerating one of the same mass, and LIGO shows that you don't get that - it only detects the last moments leading into merger, and then the gravitational waves stop completely.
The in swirling is associated with the LIGO detection, but the event is at its most massive energetic peak during the final stages of the death spiral where the acceleration of the two bodies is relativistic. When the collision occurs, you get a massive cosmic event and then it is over. The normal mass of the two black bodies does not set off LIGO alarms, but when the two bodies are accelerated in the death spiral they do. It is a function of the two, mass and acceleration of the mass in the death spiral.
Quote
Perhaps those are the same kind though, just insignificant due to their relative scarcity and high peak strength, so most of the slowing of functionality could be driven by an astronomical number of gravitational waves of infinitesimal magnitude.
Good thinking, and well put from an ISU perspective, :)
Quote
I don't think it can be the same mechanism though, because the LIGO ones are carrying energy lost by orbital decay, whereas the waves you need to be coming off all matter all the time would have to emit energy without any such decay, meaning the energy has to be taken from somewhere else.
I understand where you get that, but no wave energy need be lost in the in swirling death spiral of the two orbiting body scenario.
Quote
You have more of it in some places than others, and it radiates out from places with higher energy density into areas with less. That leaves you with a constant depletion of that energy in the areas of higher energy density which means they are not getting back as much energy as they are putting out.
Except that the areas of higher energy density are associated with areas in close proximity to mass, and that nearby mass is continually emitting gravitational wave energy to replace any that you perceive as being lost.
Quote
I don't think through the lens of GR (or SR). I use LET, and LET is so close to your model that they may in most respects be the same model.
Thank you for that clarification.
Post by: David Cooper on 26/12/2018 18:32:48
The reason I’ve never really taken the time to present my layman science enthusiast’s comparison between Lorentz Ether Theory and the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) layman level model is because LET was followed closely by Einstein’s very successful SR and GR which took the spotlight, and so my main comparisons have been between GR and the ISU.
LET is radically different from SR&GR, but doesn't look radically different from ISU. You have simply proposed a mechanism for gravity which fills a space in LET. That space is there because we don't know which mechanism is right. (GR has a space there too as it doesn't specify how mass curves space.) You have pushed ISU some way towards SR/GR though by ruling out absolute time, so you've placed your model somewhere in between.
Quote
I understand where you get that, but no wave energy need be lost in the in swirling death spiral of the two orbiting body scenario.
The gravitational wave being sent out is the lost energy - you can't both retain that energy at the black holes and also have it being radiated away.
Quote
There is no continual creation of energy in the ISU. ...
Except that the areas of higher energy density are associated with areas in close proximity to mass, and that nearby mass is continually emitting gravitational wave energy to replace any that you perceive as being lost.
Those areas of high mass are going to radiate more energy away than comes back. There is no way to maintain a higher concentration of that energy there - it will fill the universe and reach a uniform level everywhere with no peaks where the mass is. It's exactly like putting a hot metal object into a tank of cold water - the heat will spread out through the water and the object will cool down even though each of its atoms is initially surrounded by hot atoms which put some heat back into any atom that loses its heat energy. There will be a continual depletion of energy from your matter as it radiates off your gravitational waves, and that will lead to the system no longer functioning unless you have some mechanism for continually creating new energy wherever mass is.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/12/2018 20:20:25
LET is radically different from SR&GR, but doesn't look radically different from ISU. You have simply proposed a mechanism for gravity which fills a space in LET. That space is there because we don't know which mechanism is right. (GR has a space there too as it doesn't specify how mass curves space.) You have pushed ISU some way towards SR/GR though by ruling out absolute time, so you've placed your model somewhere in between.
In the ISU model, space isn’t being created, it wasn’t created; it has always been there, everywhere; it is infinite, as a given in the ISU (call it axiomatic).
I didn’t intentionally place my model where you perceive it to be, relative to other models. I actually developed it step by step starting with the question, “If there was one big bang event, why not multiple big gangs?”
Quote
The gravitational wave being sent out is the lost energy - you can't both retain that energy at the black holes and also have it being radiated away.
Am I giving that impression? Black holes are continually accumulating matter and energy through accretion. The black holes retain essentially everything that gets into them, but in the ISU process of Arena Action, those black holes will be recycled when our arena (any arena) intersects and converges with an adjacent expanding arena in the landscape of the greater universe. The matter and gravitational wave energy contained in every black hole, in both of the converging parent arenas, gets refreshed into low entropy energy in the form of the hot dense ball of plasma energy that emerges from a big crunch when it collapse/bangs.
In the ISU, what we observe in our Hubble view is the local part of a single big bang arena. The larger picture of the ISU model is out of sight, and features an infinite landscape, filled with big bang arenas, and featuring active encounters between expanding arena waves occurring all over the place, the formation of high energy big crunches from the inflowing matter and energy of the converging parent arenas, and the collapse/bang of those crunches into arena sized out flowing waves; our observable universe is just a portion of one of those expanding arena waves, and there are a potentially infinite number of them at all times across the landscape of the greater universe.
Like a broken record, big bangs are occurring all the time across the landscape, as big bang arena waves expand, over lap, form gravitationally caused swirls of galactic matter and energy contributed by each “parent” arena, and those convergences form gravitationally accumulated swirling rendezvous of matter and wave energy, leading to big crunches, the crunches reach critical capacity and collapse/bang into new, expanding big bang arenas, and those new arenas expand until their expansion is interrupted by converging and overlapping with nearby expanding arenas, whereupon big crunches form, collapse/bang into new expanding big bang arenas, which expand until interrupted … you get the idea. That is called the process of Big Bang Arena Action, and it is going on perpetually across the entire infinite universe and always has been. It defeats any concept of entropy, and it doesn’t involve the creation of new space, it doesn’t involve the creation of new energy, it doesn’t involve the stretching or bending of space, it doesn’t involve aether in any of the versions that are mentioned in the historical developments of LED, and it doesn’t invoke the concept of spacetime.
However, the old adage that energy cannot be created or destroyed has a perfect home in the ISU. Gravitational wave energy is all there is in the ISU. Everything is composed of gravitational wave energy, and all mass has both components, the inflow and out flow of gravitational wave energy.
I will continue the contrasting ideas, but first one commonality; in both LED, and the ISU, we see only a portion of the contents of space. In our Hubble view, we observe a finite amount of space that contains a finite amount of matter and energy, and yet, in the ISU it is posited that there is infinite space, infinite time, and infinite gravitational wave energy.
The ISU model paints a picture of a very versatile gravitational wave energy commodity that fills all space; our observable universe is full of it, everything is composed of it in the form of matter, light, gravitational waves, virtual particles, fundamental wave-particles, atoms, molecules, massive objects, stars and planets, solar systems, galaxies, galactic structure, and to go one step into the ISU landscape of the greater universe, big bang arenas and arena action are all incarnations of the indestructible commodity called gravitational wave energy.
Take a big bang event, referred to as a common occurrence throughout the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe. Each big bang, better described as the collapse/bang of a big crunch, emits a huge, hot dense ball of energy, and that dense-state energy ball quickly becomes an expanding plasma wave, it becomes a big bang arena wave that expands and cools, and starts decaying into massive exotic early particles, that then decay and cool further until the stable particles that we are familiar with form across the entire expanding new arena. That means that the common source of particles, massive objects, stars, galaxies, and galactic structure of everything that we observe filling our Hubble view, a tiny patch of space in comparison to infinity, comes from a single big crunch that collapse/banged into our expanding galaxy filled big bang arena 14 or so billion years ago in a big bang event. A single big bang is a tiny moment in a tiny place consisting of a tiny amount of energy, relative the infinities of space, time and wave energy making up the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe, and in the ISU model, that infinite universe is filled with nothing but gravitational wave energy.
The stage is now set to discuss the nature of wave-particles, gravity, and the gravitational wave energy profile of space within an expanding arena. That discussion would include an explanation of dark energy, particle formation, wave-particles, the components of wave particles, virtual particles, and dark matter, all associated with the tiny observable portion of our insignificant big bang arena, situated here around us in the infinite and eternal arena landscape of the greater universe. I have addressed all of those things in my discussion of the ISU, and everything is open for further discussion.
Quote
Those areas of high mass are going to radiate more energy away than comes back. There is no way to maintain a higher concentration of that energy there - it will fill the universe and reach a uniform level everywhere with no peaks where the mass is. It's exactly like putting a hot metal object into a tank of cold water - the heat will spread out through the water and the object will cool down even though each of its atoms is initially surrounded by hot atoms which put some heat back into any atom that loses its heat energy. There will be a continual depletion of energy from your matter as it radiates off your gravitational waves, and that will lead to the system no longer functioning unless you have some mechanism for continually creating new energy wherever mass is.
Look at the description of the ISU above. Do you see any way that energy can escape? If so, I didn’t describe it sufficiently.
Granted, in some models, like GR, and like The Big Rip, the end of the universe might be like what you describe, but in the ISU, the gravitational wave energy that you see “radiating off” isn’t escaping, and before it gets away the mechanism for its replacement is already working, i.e., the gravitational wave energy density profile of space is universal, and has all the energy, and is continually being refreshed by the perpetual processes of arena action and quantum action of the ISU.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/12/2018 11:49:34
I'm not an absolutist, so there's no concept of just being stopped, and thus no issue with all the problems that arise from asserting such a state.Me either. In my view, being stopped is relative, but it goes along with the view that in a larger space, one that contains many objects that are in motion relative to each other, being stopped relative to another object still means you are in motion relative to all objects that are in relative motion. Because there is no absolute space in the ISU model, you cannot designate an absolute location in space, and you cannot return to that exact location with complete certainty (even the bread crumbs move, lol.)
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/12/2018 13:29:08
Me either. In my view, being stopped is relative, but it goes along with the view that in a larger space, one that contains many objects that are in motion relative to each other, being stopped relative to another object still means you are in motion relative to all objects that are in relative motion. Because there is no absolute space in the ISU model, you cannot designate an absolute location in space, and you cannot return to that exact location with complete certainty (even the bread crumbs move, lol.)
I was talking about my clock being stopped, not having zero velocity.
Anyway, this is an interesting answer you give, seemingly directly from the dogma of science, rather than the absolutist view that David pushes. I thought you were agreeing with David more until I saw this post.
And that concept of uncertainty in regard to an absolute location in space has ramifications in regard to the concept of absolute time, because relative motion between clocks makes them function at a different rates when it comes to ticking off time in the clocks measured increments.
If you can’t be certain in regard to an absolute location in space, you cannot be certain as to which clock is ticking off time at the absolute rate. There is no absolute space and no absolute time in the ISU model.
Post by: David Cooper on 27/12/2018 19:50:25
I didn’t intentionally place my model where you perceive it to be, relative to other models. I actually developed it step by step starting with the question, “If there was one big bang event, why not multiple big bangs?”
There are different aspects of models which result in they being grouped differently depending on which aspects you're focusing on at the time, so I wouldn't worry too much about how they should be set out in a chart. On the time issue though, theories which lack absolute time have something in common which they don't share with LET. On the space issue, theories which don't curve space to account for gravity have something different in common. On these two points, GR and LET share no mechanisms, but ISU shares something with each.
Quote
Am I giving that impression? Black holes are continually accumulating matter and energy through accretion.
Some of them are hardly taking in new material at all, while others are feasting. If they are the same mass though, they have the same strength of gravitational pull. That non-addition of material in the former case cannot provide the energy that would need to be radiated off all the time for ISU. I'm not here to attack ISU though and it doesn't matter for a simulation exploring the nature of time whether the model is functional or broken - you can have your gravitational waves for this because where the energy for that comes from is an issue for a different discussion.
Quote
Look at the description of the ISU above. Do you see any way that energy can escape? If so, I didn’t describe it sufficiently.
Energy isn't lost from the universe, but your gravitational waves will spread out and fill space more and more evenly, taking energy away from the mass concentrations and depleting them. They are not being recharged.
Quote
Granted, in some models, like GR, and like The Big Rip, the end of the universe might be like what you describe, but in the ISU, the gravitational wave energy that you see “radiating off” isn’t escaping, and before it gets away the mechanism for its replacement is already working, i.e., the gravitational wave energy density profile of space is universal, and has all the energy, and is continually being refreshed by the perpetual processes of arena action and quantum action of the ISU.
If you have lots of this energy everywhere ready to replace what's radiating off, that energy is going to contribute to the energy density in such a way that you won't have gravity acting the way it needs to to fit the known facts. You can only have the right energy density profile around a body by having a lack of replacement energy queueing up to replace the stuff that has to be radiated off.
Post by: David Cooper on 27/12/2018 19:53:24
I don't think one of them would be stopped. One of them is stopped relative to something, in this case the accelerating observer. I'm not an absolutist, so there's no concept of just being stopped, and thus no issue with all the problems that arise from asserting such a state.
Neither's functionality would be stopped, and neither's functionality would be stopped relative to the other's either. Nor is any accelerating observer going to see it as stopped.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/12/2018 22:01:33
There are different aspects of models which result in they being grouped differently depending on which aspects you're focusing on at the time, so I wouldn't worry too much about how they should be set out in a chart. On the time issue though, theories which lack absolute time have something in common which they don't share with LET. On the space issue, theories which don't curve space to account for gravity have something different in common. On these two points, GR and LET share no mechanisms, but ISU shares something with each.Good to know.
I’ll buy that, and take it as confirmation that LET invokes absolute time, differing from the ISU.
On the space issue, if I interpret your plain English properly, you understand that wave energy density plays the same role in the ISU model as curved space plays in SR/GR?
Quote
Some of them are hardly taking in new material at all, while others are feasting. If they are the same mass though, they have the same strength of gravitational pull. That non-addition of material in the former case cannot provide the energy that would need to be radiated off all the time for ISU. I'm not here to attack ISU though and it doesn't matter for a simulation exploring the nature of time whether the model is functional or broken - you can have your gravitational waves for this because where the energy for that comes from is an issue for a different discussion.I don’t consider your reasonable comments as attacks. I consider it likely that those conclusions reflect thinking that is not substantiated by the content of the ISU, but that you are not entirely familiar with. It almost looks like you're thinking of the state of our observable arena as if it stands alone as an independent universe, independent of the greater universe in the ISU model. It doesn't stand alone in the ISU; I describe our Hubble view as only a portion of one expanding Big Bang arena among a potentially infinite number of similar Big Bang arenas. Our home arena (maybe I should name it) is in constant interaction with the greater universe, and especially with our immediate neighboring arenas, and also with the “corridors of continuity” which play a role in the mechanics of ISU arena action.
The hemispherical anisotropy,
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_30_07_17_2_11_47.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_30_07_17_2_11_47.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_30_07_17_2_11_47.jpeg)
coupled with the cold spot anomaly,
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_30_10_18_2_31_37.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_30_10_18_2_31_37.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_30_10_18_2_31_37.jpeg)
… support the interaction hypothesis. If the cause of the hemispherical anisotropy is the result of two previous parent arenas converging to form our expanding arena, and if the cause of the cold spot turns out to be a directional pull on galaxies in our arena from the approach of an expanding neighboring arena, then those ISU hypotheses will be confirmed.
Quote
Energy isn't lost from the universe, but your gravitational waves will spread out and fill space more and more evenly, taking energy away from the mass concentrations and depleting them. They are not being recharged.I would propose rewording that sentence: Energy isn’t lost from the greater universe, but from the perspective of our own arena (maybe I’ll name it Big Bogie, ;D ), gravitational waves will continue to spread out, causing the growing volume of space incorporated into Big Bogie as it expands, to have a lower overall gravitational wave energy density, while at the same time feeding low intensity gravitational wave energy into the corridors of continuity that surround all arenas that make up the landscape of the greater universe.
Quote
I don’t entirely disagree with that statement, but would reword it into a sentence more to my own likening: You have lots of this energy everywhere out there in the greater universe, ready to replace what's radiating off from Big Bogie, out into the corridors of continuity, and it will do so in a very cataclysmic way when Big Bogie, already a high entropy arena (essentially old and cold), converges with a similar high entropy adjacent expanding arena, resulting in the gravitational accumulation of a new Big Crunch out of the galactic matter and energy of the parent arenas, and in a huge swirling rendezvous that will grow through accretion until the ISU critical capacity limit of a Big Crunch is reached, causing the new Big Crunch that has formed there in landscape of the greater universe to collapse/bang into a very low entropy, hot, dense ball of plasma, that will expand, cool, form particles out of the dense state energy as it decays, and those particles will have separation momentum imparted to them from the bang, which means that as they tend to clump in close quarters due to quantum gravity, the clumps will conserve the separation momentum of the particles in them, and the resulting massive objects that form will clump to form stars that will clump into galaxies, and the galaxies and galactic structure will all be moving away from each other due to the conservation of the separation momentum imparted to the early particles by the Big Bang itself, just like we now observe within Big Bogie, resulting in an arena which will quite nicely fit the known facts that have been taught to us by closely observing Big Bogie!
If you have lots of this energy everywhere ready to replace what's radiating off, that energy is going to contribute to the energy density in such a way that you won't have gravity acting the way it needs to to fit the known facts. You can only have the right energy density profile around a body by having a lack of replacement energy queueing up to replace the stuff that has to be radiated off.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/12/2018 22:11:50
Halc, you are beginning to see that David and I have different positions on absolute time and space? We weren't trying to keep it a secret, lol.If you can’t be certain in regard to an absolute location in space, you cannot be certain as to which clock is ticking off time at the absolute rate.My point was that none of them can possibly tick at the absolute rate, or even a fraction of it, unless the absolute rate was infinite. I don't buy into a flow rate at all, so this is not an issue. Sounds like you don't buy into it either.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/12/2018 00:09:55
Remember this from reply #205?
It should start to make more sense if you think about it …
Meteorites, the poem
The Universe, a quiet place, is home to our existence,
But surely the perspective skews when viewed from such a distance.
Big Bangs blast out the building blocks of life's regeneration,
In places far, imponder'ble, beyond imagination.
No start of time, no end of space; a wave energy domain,
A place where God and Universe seem essentially the same.
What guides your acts; your own freewill, to be cast responsibly,
Take caution then, false words and deeds, affect life predictably.
Yet life is so undaunted that perpetually its found there,
Created or evolved it seems to spring form almost nowhere.
From galaxies, to holes of black, dark matter and neutrinos,
Where endlessly life's dice are tossed in cosmic class casinos.
Explosions then, great cataclysms, booms, its an inferno,
Our beings shoot like meteors, traversing space eternal.
The roles that we have just disposed are not the final curtain,
We'll star as sparkling meteorites, leading roles for certain.
Post by: jimbobghost on 28/12/2018 16:20:48
https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/science/this-new-study-suggests-that-time-existed-before-the-big-bang/vi-BBRrUSK?ocid=spartandhp
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/12/2018 00:44:52
along these lines:Reply #262
https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/science/this-new-study-suggests-that-time-existed-before-the-big-bang/vi-BBRrUSK?ocid=spartandhp (https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/science/this-new-study-suggests-that-time-existed-before-the-big-bang/vi-BBRrUSK?ocid=spartandhp)
From Science Daily
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181228164824.htm (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181228164824.htm)
Our universe: An expanding bubble in an extra dimension
Date:
December 28, 2018
Source:
Uppsala University
Uppsala University is a research university in Uppsala, Sweden, and is the oldest university in Sweden and all of the Nordic countries still in operation, founded in 1477. It ranks among the world's 100 best universities in several high-profile international rankings.
Summary:
Researchers have devised a new model for the universe -- one that may solve the enigma of dark energy. Their new article proposes a new structural concept, including dark energy, for a universe that rides on an expanding bubble in an additional dimension.
End of Summary
Here’s the journal source:
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.261301 (https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.261301)
Article:
We have known for the past 20 years that the Universe is expanding at an ever accelerating rate. The explanation is the "dark energy" that permeates it throughout, pushing it to expand. Understanding the nature of this dark energy is one of the paramount enigmas of fundamental physics.
It has long been hoped that string theory will provide the answer. According to string theory, all matter consists of tiny, vibrating "stringlike" entities. The theory also requires there to be more spatial dimensions than the three that are already part of everyday knowledge. For 15 years, there have been models in string theory that have been thought to give rise to dark energy. However, these have come in for increasingly harsh criticism, and several researchers are now asserting that none of the models proposed to date are workable.
In their article, the scientists propose a new model with dark energy and our Universe riding on an expanding bubble in an extra dimension. The whole Universe is accommodated on the edge of this expanding bubble. All existing matter in the Universe corresponds to the ends of strings that extend out into the extra dimension. The researchers also show that expanding bubbles of this kind can come into existence within the framework of string theory. It is conceivable that there are more bubbles than ours, corresponding to other universes.
The Uppsala scientists' model provides a new, different picture of the creation and future fate of the Universe, while it may also pave the way for methods of testing string theory.
[][][][][][][]
I read articles like this all the time.
Universal expansion
Accelerating rate of expansion
The explanation for dark energy
Enigmas of fundamental physics
Hopes for string theory
Multiple spatial dimensions
Disappointment
And now an expanding bubble in another dimension? It is string theory and QFT wrapped up in an expanding big bang arena, that they say provides a new and different picture of creation.
My thoughts? The ISU is my thing, lol.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_06_08_17_6_06_27.jpeg)
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/12/2018 18:27:19
https://www.healthy-holistic-living.com/master-tonic-2.html (https://www.healthy-holistic-living.com/master-tonic-2.html)
Post by: jimbobghost on 29/12/2018 19:28:59
similar experiments I have made, and tested upon my person have not been so successful; however after a hospital visit with stomach pumping, I in fact survived (proof of which I submit by my current post).
may I inquire as to the alcohol content of your elixir; and should it be > 50%; would you be interested in establishing a distribution partner?
are you interested in providing a quantity of your elixir to a volunteer? (and if proven to be a non fatal; or at least not leading to blindness) how much per gallon would you be considering?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/12/2018 20:25:46
my congratulations on the successful result of your experiment.
similar experiments I have made, and tested upon my person have not been so successful; however after a hospital visit with stomach pumping, I in fact survived (proof of which I submit by my current post).
may I inquire as to the alcohol content of your elixir; and should it be > 50%; would you be interested in establishing a distribution partner?
are you interested in providing a quantity of your elixir to a volunteer? (and if proven to be a non fatal; or at least not leading to blindness) how much per gallon would you be considering?
Lol, sorry, this is probably down around 1% (my guess). Looking at the ingredients in the link I posted, and it being sealed in glass containers for about three or four weeks for purposes of infusion, not fermentation. Probably some fermentation, but pretty low sugar content in the ingredients, and no yeast added. If I come across a hydrometer I guess I could test it.
But it does pack a kick. My wife will not even consider a taste :shrug:, and our friends take my wife’s side on it.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_29_12_18_8_21_13.jpeg)
When I drink a 1 oz shot, I shoot it straight down in one gulp, and then usually cringe for a few seconds. It does burn going down, but it gives a sense of wellbeing once it settles in. I think it is a probiotic, has antibiotic action, anti-acid too, but don’t quote me, read up about its medicinal benefits, and make some at home. It is easy and healthy, according to the Internet, lol.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 04/01/2019 22:14:27
@David Cooper
Re. my reply #258
It is to my disappointment that my reply #258, dated 12/27/18, was our last communication, and it received no response. Perhaps due to the holidays, or perhaps because both curved spacetime speculation, and gravitational wave energy density time-delay speculation are not easily falsifiable. The association between the presence of mass and the curvature of spacetime is the same as the association between the presence of mass and the gravitational wave energy density of the local space, from the perspective of the ISU model which we are simulating.
It would be nice to know if you did understand that the role that wave energy density plays in the ISU model is the same role that curved space plays in SR/GR, because light following a curved path through spacetime, and light slowed by following a path that takes it through space containing higher gravitational wave energy density, both have the same result in terms of arrival times at a distant point.
Further, in regard to these two points, The hemispherical anisotropy,
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_30_07_17_2_11_47.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_30_07_17_2_11_47.jpeg)
coupled with the cold spot anomaly,
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_30_10_18_2_31_37.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_30_10_18_2_31_37.jpeg)
It would have been nice to have a reply from someone of your intellect in regard to my supposition that the cause of the hemispherical anisotropy might be the result of two previous parent arenas converging to form a big crunch/bang that initiated our expanding arena, and therefore the resulting hemispherical anisotropy observed in the cosmic microwave background could have been imprinted by differing density/temperature characteristics of each of the individual parent arenas.
Also, if the cause of the cold spot turns out to be as I speculate, a directional pull on galaxies in our arena from the approach of an expanding neighboring arena, then those ISU hypotheses would have some observational support.
There are different aspects of models
Sorry if trying to bring out those different aspects interfered with the discussion of the absolute time simulation. Perhaps you can take us forward in that direction.
Post by: David Cooper on 06/01/2019 00:21:02
It is to my disappointment that my reply #258, dated 12/27/18, was our last communication, and it received no response. Perhaps due to the holidays, or perhaps because both curved spacetime speculation, and gravitational wave energy density time-delay speculation are not easily falsifiable. The association between the presence of mass and the curvature of spacetime is the same as the association between the presence of mass and the gravitational wave energy density of the local space, from the perspective of the ISU model which we are simulating.
Sorry - I didn't realise you were waiting for a response. I though you were just filling me in on how your theory solves the problem as to where the energy comes from to replace the energy that's sent out with your gravity waves, but I couldn't work out how that happens. You appear to have neighbouring universes which are part of a "greater universe", and that's fine - we can't rule out there being such things on the outside, and perhaps energy could be tapped from them, although we don't see energy being taken out of our own universe to match - its loss should show up as visual distortions in places alongside massive objects in other universes where that energy is taken out of our universe to supply power for the generation of gravity waves from those massive objects on the other side of the barrier.
Quote
It would be nice to know if you did understand that the role that wave energy density plays in the ISU model is the same role that curved space plays in SR/GR, because light following a curved path through spacetime, and light slowed by following a path that takes it through space containing higher gravitational wave energy density, both have the same result in terms of arrival times at a distant point.
I've already established that and pointed out that LET uses practically the same mechanism - it just doesn't call that energy gravitational waves or energy density, but merely recognises that something is present at any point in space which slows the speed of light, doing so more strongly in the vicinity of higher energy densities, though not matching the measurable energy densities at any location because the slowing of light occurs in a way that spreads far out away from where the measurable energy is concentrated.
Quote
It would have been nice to have a reply from someone of your intellect in regard to my supposition that the cause of the hemispherical anisotropy might be the result of two previous parent arenas converging to form a big crunch/bang that initiated our expanding arena, and therefore the resulting hemispherical anisotropy observed in the cosmic microwave background could have been imprinted by differing density/temperature characteristics of each of the individual parent arenas.
It isn't something I've looked into or given much thought to. I'm still trying to find any theory that fits all the facts rationally on a local scale without worrying about things happening billions of lightyears away. Those things can provide clues, of course, so I do still keep them in mind - if something in another universe can really pull on objects in our universe, that would be of crucial importance, but it isn't clear to me that that's been established yet.
Quote
Sorry if trying to bring out those different aspects interfered with the discussion of the absolute time simulation. Perhaps you can take us forward in that direction.[/font]
The trick there is to avoid including too much of the mechanisms of specific theories and just simulate the behaviour of clocks with a minimal mechanism to slow some of them, this being linked to a numerical value which simply represents the "energy density" of the "gravitational waves" at the clock's location. That value would be the same for ISU as it is for LET (but with a different explanation in LET where it simply represents the amount of slowing of the local speed of light).
[By the way (and mainly for Halc), I've been thinking a bit about the waves that are normally called gravitational waves - the ones that don't come off stationary or non-accelerating masses. When two black holes go round each other at relativistic speed, their gravity wells don't merely move round with them creating gravitational waves as the changes spread outwards, but must also length-contract in their current direction of travel, and this ought to have a more significant impact than the first effect. If you're sitting at some distance away from them at a constant distance, you must be going up and down in their gravity wells twice for ever orbit of the black holes. That should lead to your functionality repeatedly speeding up and slowing down as a result, and that might show by looking at the frequency of light coming to you from a distant source, though you'd have to be reasonably close to the black holes for this effect to show up. I don't know if this length-contraction input to gravitational waves is normally taken into account in any way, but I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere.]
Post by: Halc on 06/01/2019 05:29:30
[By the way (and mainly for Halc), I've been thinking a bit about the waves that are normally called gravitational waves - the ones that don't come off stationary or non-accelerating masses. When two black holes go round each other at relativistic speed, their gravity wells don't merely move round with them creating gravitational waves as the changes spread outwards, but must also length-contract in their current direction of travel, and this ought to have a more significant impact than the first effect. If you're sitting at some distance away from them at a constant distance, you must be going up and down in their gravity wells twice for ever orbit of the black holes. That should lead to your functionality repeatedly speeding up and slowing down as a result, and that might show by looking at the frequency of light coming to you from a distant source, though you'd have to be reasonably close to the black holes for this effect to show up. I don't know if this length-contraction input to gravitational waves is normally taken into account in any way, but I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere.]Interesting concept. A distant light changes color in beat with the orbiting masses nearby. Did you find anywhere that describes this? Seems plausible, but how close might you need to be for it to be measured?
Not sure what the length contraction of the moving objects has to do with the effect.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/01/2019 15:03:41
Sorry - I didn't realise you were waiting for a response. I thought you were just filling me in on how your theory solves the problem as to where the energy comes from to replace the energy that's sent out with your gravity waves, but I couldn't work out how that happens.True, I was filling you in, in responding to you argument in Reply #249:
The gravitational wave being sent out is the lost energy - you can't both retain that energy at the black holes and also have it being radiated away.My intention is to dispel your misconceptions about the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model, before we get to the meat of sorting out your simulation that you suggest will show that the ISU must incorporate absolute time.
Quote
You appear to have neighbouring universes which are part of a "greater universe", and that's fine - we can't rule out there being such things on the outside,You are correct, but I would prefer to phrase that so say that, “Because the observable portion of the universe that we are working with, our Hubble view, appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate, and the conventional explanation for that observation includes a big bang event, then your statement that we can’t rule out “things on the outside” is an understatement.
I would phrase it to say that if you believe in cause and effect that is bread of the scientific method, and if you don’t invoke either the “Something from nothing” or the “God did it” explanations for the existence of the observable universe, then instead of saying we can’t rule out things on the outside, can we agree that the logical conclusion is that there are things on the outside that lead to that big bang event?
Post by: David Cooper on 06/01/2019 20:27:14
Interesting concept. A distant light changes color in beat with the orbiting masses nearby. Did you find anywhere that describes this? Seems plausible, but how close might you need to be for it to be measured?
I haven't crunched any numbers for this or found anything to read anything about the idea - I was just following through the idea of length contraction acting on gravity wells, and such length contraction must occur in order not to break relativity (because any lack of length contraction on gravity wells would provide an easy mechanism to pin down the aether).
When both black holes are moving perpendicular to the direction to the observer, the observer will be deeper in both their gravity wells than when they're moving towards or away from the observer. The observer isn't so interested in observing the black holes though - his attention is on a distant signal source and its frequency. This source is far away not to be affected by the gravitational waves as they haven't had time to reach it (and it could also be located in line with the axis of the centre of rotation of the two black holes so that the gravitational waves aren't directed towards it at all), although the signal would still need to travel through space that is affected by those waves, so there may be an opportunity there for changes in its frequency to be imposed upon it there (but with different sources at different angles, I don't think they could all be affected in the same way to hide the effect as they'd meet the gravitational waves with different frequencies). However, the signal will be slowed along with the observer's functionality as it reaches him, so maybe the effect would be masked perfectly.
As for how close you'd need to be (if there's an effect that could be measured), the answer is bound to leave us too far away from any merging black holes to have a chance of detecting it in the way I described, but perhaps we could observe a signal coming to us through the space near the black holes instead - the signal would sometimes be slowed more and sometimes less, so we could potentially see frequency changes that demonstrate that there are length contraction changes acting on the gravity wells. We'd need to detect the gravitational waves as early as possible, triangulate them, point a giant telescope at the source in an impossibly short time and then hope there's a suitable signal passing nearby whose frequency might be affected. The source should also be seen to move due to gravitational lensing, so that might be a better way to make the measurements.
Post by: David Cooper on 06/01/2019 21:27:20
...then instead of saying we can’t rule out things on the outside, can we agree that the logical conclusion is that there are things on the outside that lead to that big bang event?
There could be (and probably are) things on the outside that have a role. I have no interest in disproving ISU, but I've commented on things where I saw potential problems which were worth mentioning just in case you hadn't already considered them carefully. If you have answers to them all and it holds together well, then all is good. Your theory will at some point be tested by AGI (along with every other theory) to see how well it fits the facts, and the best way for me to help test your theory is to complete my work on developing the AGI that will do that job better than I can, so that's why I don't want to dig too deep into it at the moment. There are so many theories around that no human has time to check them all in detail to see how well they stand up to scrutiny, so your target audience will necessarily end up being AGI rather than humans. The issue of absolute time is a much simpler thing to explore, and it doesn't appear to be an important one for your theory - I can't see how adding an acceptance of it (or the possibility of it) to your theory would break the theory, so while I don't want to dig too deep, I would be interested to know why you're so keen for it to be ruled out in your theory. What is it in your theory that depends on absolute time not existing?
Post by: Halc on 07/01/2019 00:28:02
The observer isn't so interested in observing the black holes though - his attention is on a distant signal source and its frequency. This source is far away not to be affected by the gravitational waves as they haven't had time to reach it.We need not worry about this. It is distant enough that the waves will be insignificant compared to the rocking boat that is our observer. The distant galaxy is putting out a clean laser at us at some fixed frequency, and for simplicity, that light source is stationary with respect to our observer and the COM of our black hole pair.
Quote
However, the signal will be slowed along with the observer's functionality as it reaches him, so maybe the effect would be masked perfectly.Can't be if the observer and light source are relatively stationary. Contraction cannot affect the frequency at which the light arrives at the stationary observer. If his clock runs slow, then he sees the light blue shifted. [Undefined] length contraction plays no role in that.
Quote
As for how close you'd need to be (if there's an effect that could be measured),There is going to be a blue shift just because you're stationary in a gravity well. To detect the effect, the difference in gravitational potential from the height of the wave to the trough of the wave needs to be large enough to detect the change in blue shift of the distant light. Best done if you're pretty close to the orbit of two fairly separated black holes, say going around once a day. Given something to hold you stationary as each of them passes close by, that would be a dramatic change to the distant light, would it not? I don't see why the singularities need to be imminently merging.
Quote
We'd need to detect the gravitational waves as early as possible, triangulate them, point a giant telescope at the source in an impossibly short time and then hope there's a suitable signal passing nearby whose frequency might be affected.My scenario made it hardly an impossibly short time, and it depended minimally on gravity waves since we're close enough to just have an immediate real gravity shift as each black hole passes close by. You could even play games with holes of different masses and put the observer in such a place that the big one passes you on the inside, but the little one passes on the other side of the observer since it orbits at a larger radius.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 07/01/2019 13:00:04
There could be (and probably are) things on the outside that have a role. I have no interest in disproving ISU, but I've commented on things where I saw potential problems which were worth mentioning just in case you hadn't already considered them carefully. If you have answers to them all and it holds together well, then all is good. Your theory will at some point be tested by AGI (along with every other theory) to see how well it fits the facts, and the best way for me to help test your theory is to complete my work on developing the AGI that will do that job better than I can, so that's why I don't want to dig too deep into it at the moment. There are so many theories around that no human has time to check them all in detail to see how well they stand up to scrutiny, so your target audience will necessarily end up being AGI rather than humans.Like many things, individual cosmological models like the ISU may not stand up to the scrutiny of AGI on a reasonable number of points. The hurdle for AGI might turn out to be centered on the difference between known science that can be recorded in the data base, and the “as yet” unknowns that are still somewhere between theory and proof. Also, there is always the fact that science is referred to as tentative, meaning that even generally accept science can be superseded by new developments.
Quote
The issue of absolute time is a much simpler thing to explore, and it doesn't appear to be an important one for your theory - I can't see how adding an acceptance of it (or the possibility of it) to your theory would break the theory, so while I don't want to dig too deep, I would be interested to know why you're so keen for it to be ruled out in your theory. What is it in your theory that depends on absolute time not existing?
I’m keen on time not being absolute because my whole model is built from the bottom up, through a sequence of logical steps, starting with the big bang as a given, and followed by the question, if there was one big bang event, why not multiple big bangs. My conclusion is that time simply passes, but the rate that time passes as measured by clocks is variable, governed by the local gravitational wave energy density.
If you were to go step by step along the same path I followed as I developed the ISU model, you would conclude at a point down the line, in order for the universe to exist, and in order for the observable expanding portion of it to be causally connected to a big bang event, there must be a greater universe that features multiple big bang events, and perpetually provides the circumstance necessary for the preconditions for each such event.
Thinking that through, you get to the multiple big bang arena landscape, and the process of arena action that defeats entropy, and perpetuates the multiple big bang arena composition of the greater universe. Concluding that the greater universe has always existed is simply based on the fact that I don’t consider the alternatives of “something from nothing” and “God did it” as compatible with the scientific method, and of course, if it was ever going to come to an end, why hasn’t it?
That brings us to the sticking point in regard to absolute time. I take the term “absolute time” to mean that there is a standard or preferred rate that time passes, but instead we see that the measurement of the rate of the passing of time, as performed by clocks, is all over the map. Therefore, to my way of thinking, there is no preferred location in space where a clock would tick away at the absolute rate, there is no preferred rest frame where time is passing at an absolute rate in an infinite, multiple big bang universe, and in fact, there are no two clocks that are in relative motion to each other that will measure the passing of time at the preferred rate or even at the same rate. For me, in my model, it is a simple conclusion that the concept of absolute time is unnecessary and impractical.
I characterize time as follows:
1) Time simply passes everywhere in the ISU at a rate that is governed by the gravitational wave energy density profile of the local space.
2) Clocks are used to measure the local rate that time is measured to be passing. A necessary characteristic of a clock is that it “ticks” away in regular increments. When all else is the same in regard to the gravitational wave energy density environment where two identical clocks are ticking away, they are said to be sharing the same local gravitational wave energy density profile. The premise is that two identical clocks experiencing the same density profile will measure the passing of time at identical rates.
3) The rate that time passes in the ISU is variable from one energy density environment to another. Since there is no standard wave energy density environment, and no preferred frame where the density is unchanging, there is no location where the rate that time passes can be referred to as absolute.
Post by: David Cooper on 07/01/2019 19:33:02
QuoteHowever, the signal will be slowed along with the observer's functionality as it reaches him, so maybe the effect would be masked perfectly.Can't be if the observer and light source are relatively stationary. Contraction cannot affect the frequency at which the light arrives at the stationary observer. If his clock runs slow, then he sees the light blue shifted. [Undefined] length contraction plays no role in that.
As the gravity well warps and the observer goes deeper, his functionality slows down, but so does the signal that he's monitoring - that signal is going to move through space there at the same speed as the light in the observer's light clock, so I think it might be possible for the frequency to appear constant with the same amount of it arriving in any measured amount of time.
Quote
I don't see why the singularities need to be imminently merging.
You might need them to be travelling at relativistic speed for the length contraction of the gravity wells to become sufficiently big - the effect will be a lot harder to detect at lower orbital speeds as there will be very little warping. Still, I may be underestimating the ability of gravitational wave detectors to pick up the signal from merging black holes long before the merger. It would be really good if a changing length contraction acting on a gravity well could be observed, and that might soon be possible.
Post by: David Cooper on 07/01/2019 19:48:35
I’m keen on time not being absolute because my whole model is built from the bottom up, through a sequence of logical steps, starting with the big bang as a given, and followed by the question, if there was one big bang event, why not multiple big bangs. My conclusion is that time simply passes, but the rate that time passes as measured by clocks is variable, governed by the local gravitational wave energy density.
But if a logical step shows that your slowed "time" must be slowed relative to something (absolute time), you would logically be required to accept that in your model, and I because I can't see any incompatibility issues for it, I can't see why you've seen the need to rule it out.
Quote
Thinking that through, you get to the multiple big bang arena landscape, and the process of arena action that defeats entropy, and perpetuates the multiple big bang arena composition of the greater universe. Concluding that the greater universe has always existed is simply based on the fact that I don’t consider the alternatives of “something from nothing” and “God did it” as compatible with the scientific method, and of course, if it was ever going to come to an end, why hasn’t it?
I don't see the idea of infinite time in both directions unreasonable - it is certainly more appealing than a finite start and finish with nothing else ever happening.
Quote
That brings us to the sticking point in regard to absolute time. I take the term “absolute time” to mean that there is a standard or preferred rate that time passes, but instead we see that the measurement of the rate of the passing of time, as performed by clocks, is all over the map. Therefore, to my way of thinking, there is no preferred location in space where a clock would tick away at the absolute rate, there is no preferred rest frame where time is passing at an absolute rate in an infinite, multiple big bang universe, and in fact, there are no two clocks that are in relative motion to each other that will measure the passing of time at the preferred rate or even at the same rate. For me, in my model, it is a simple conclusion that the concept of absolute time is unnecessary and impractical.
But there is perfect coordination between all these different clocks. The relative motion issue is explained by light moving through space at the same speed for both clocks, demonstrating that the same real time is governing both of them and that the clocks merely measure apparent time. That is why the simulation would be useful as a way of showing the dependence upon a governing universal time - without it, all that perfect coordination falls apart.
Quote
1) Time simply passes everywhere in the ISU at a rate that is governed by the gravitational wave energy density profile of the local space.
That energy density can only be slowing clocks down if actual time is running faster than the clock records. Otherwise, the energy density can't be slowing time because time would always have to be the time the clock shows, so the energy density would be unable to have any impact on it.
Quote
3) The rate that time passes in the ISU is variable from one energy density environment to another. Since there is no standard wave energy density environment, and no preferred frame where the density is unchanging, there is no location where the rate that time passes can be referred to as absolute.
There is perfect coordination between all clocks and the amount they are slowed by the local energy density. All that coordination depends on there being a governing time which runs faster than any of the clocks.
Post by: Halc on 07/01/2019 20:20:20
Think about it. It cannot be. If the source is spitting a signal at 1000 Hz (hardly visible light), those signals must be reaching any stationary observer at 1000 Hz in the source frame. The speed at which that signal gets there cannot change that, else the signals would be created faster than consumed, and would need to pile up somewhere, a contradiction. This is true of sound as well, not changing pitch despite moving between mediums of different sound speed. So they get there at the same frequency they left, and only the observers slowed time make it appear to be more signals per longer second. The observer sees a blue shift in proportion to his dilation relative to the source.Quote from: HalcContraction cannot affect the frequency at which the light arrives at the stationary observer. If his clock runs slow, then he sees the light blue shifted. [Undefined] length contraction plays no role in that.As the gravity well warps and the observer goes deeper, his functionality slows down, but so does the signal that he's monitoring - that signal is going to move through space there at the same speed as the light in the observer's light clock, so I think it might be possible for the frequency to appear constant with the same amount of it arriving in any measured amount of time.
The above logic doesn't hold if the observers have relative motion, in which case there is increased distance in which the extra signals can 'pile up'.
Quote
There seems to be plenty of warping due to gravity in my slow example. The length contraction of the black holes seems not to be needed or play a particular role. They can move at a more leisurely pace, but admittedly the effect would be due more to gravity, and not so much gravity waves.QuoteI don't see why the singularities need to be imminently merging.
You might need them to be travelling at relativistic speed for the length contraction of the gravity wells to become sufficiently big - the effect will be a lot harder to detect at lower orbital speeds as there will be very little warping.
Unclear if you're explicitly trying to design a different gravity wave detector here.
Quote
Still, I may be underestimating the ability of gravitational wave detectors to pick up the signal from merging black holes long before the merger. It would be really good if a changing length contraction acting on a gravity well could be observed, and that might soon be possible.I think LIGO would have no trouble detecting a passing gravity well, assuming it isn't torn apart by it. My slow example had some extreme forces that would tear a spaceship apart. The ship hardly needs to look at a blueshifting distant light source to notice that there's something going on. I put it close to make the effect obvious. A more sensitive instrument should be able to detect the same thing much further away. A billion light years? No, I think not, else they'd not have needed the expense of putting LIGO up there.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 07/01/2019 21:59:17
…
There is perfect coordination between all clocks and the amount they are slowed by the local energy density. All that coordination depends on there being a governing time which runs faster than any of the clocks.
I will give you a little to work with, but note that the idea I am offering does not apply to the ISU model, for the reasons specified below.
But never-the-less, what about this: Maybe you could put the speed of time into the same context as that of the speed of light? Assume a perfect vacuum, and a perfect clock, and make it axiomatic that the perfect clock would tick at its maximum rate in the perfect vacuum.
Given those conditions, that might serve as a conceptual definition of absolute time.
My problem with going there, is that in the ISU, that definition is not possible to implement. It is not possible to produce a perfect vacuum; it remains only a concept. So even a light clock would be slowed by the fragments of gravitational wave energy density that would invariably “fog up” an otherwise perfect vacuum.
I’m confident that you can support the concept of absolute time from a simulation. Where it gets problematic is in the specifications of the simulation, any physical apparatuses, and the physical conditions pertaining to the local environment. The best you can achieve is a conceptual explanation of absolute time, IMHO.
Post by: David Cooper on 08/01/2019 20:34:02
Think about it. It cannot be. If the source is spitting a signal at 1000 Hz (hardly visible light), those signals must be reaching any stationary observer at 1000 Hz in the source frame.
The masking would never be perfect, so it turns out that it isn't a problem, but let me explain the line I was thinking down. Imagine a glass tank with a light clock in it. Fill the tank with water and the light clock runs slow. Empty the tank and the light clock speeds up again. Now send a signal in and repeat the experiment. The signal slows down, but the frequency won't change, so the light clock (if it has a detector that can measure it and time it against light clock time) will detect it as having a higher frequency - exactly as you say. However, if you have a changing gravity well that engulfs the signal over a long distance from the side, that will slow it down such that the frequency is lowered. The further away from the black holes you are, the more perfectly the change in frequency would be masked by this. Making sure you're close enough to the black holes will defeat that masking (in two ways, the second one being that the signal is slowed over a shorter distance), and you can also avoid using a signal that's coming in from close to perpendicular to the plane in which the black holes are orbiting each other (although using some other angle opens up the opportunity for the signal to be affected by the gravitational waves, though not necessarily in such a way as to mask the difference - I just don't know how big such an effect of that kind would be or if there would be one at all, so I couldn't rule it out).
Post by: David Cooper on 08/01/2019 20:55:23
But never-the-less, what about this: Maybe you could put the speed of time into the same context as that of the speed of light? Assume a perfect vacuum, and a perfect clock, and make it axiomatic that the perfect clock would tick at its maximum rate in the perfect vacuum.
Given those conditions, that might serve as a conceptual definition of absolute time.
The real absolute time could be many magnitudes faster than that. Our entire universe could be within some outer "universe" such that the whole of our universe is running at snail pace. This would make sense too when you think about "instantaneous" action at a distance with quantum stuff.
Quote
My problem with going there, is that in the ISU, that definition is not possible to implement. It is not possible to produce a perfect vacuum; it remains only a concept. So even a light clock would be slowed by the fragments of gravitational wave energy density that would invariably “fog up” an otherwise perfect vacuum.
If you don't have that faster time, you can't have a time slowed by energy density because it isn't running slower than the faster time that the model doesn't have.
Quote
I’m confident that you can support the concept of absolute time from a simulation. Where it gets problematic is in the specifications of the simulation, any physical apparatuses, and the physical conditions pertaining to the local environment. The best you can achieve is a conceptual explanation of absolute time, IMHO.
If you make sure you have removed absolute time from the simulation, the simulation will cease to function correctly. Indeed, it will fail to function altogether. You cannot have coordination of different "times" without one of them governing the other(s).
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/01/2019 23:00:42
The real absolute time could be many magnitudes faster than that. Our entire universe could be within some outer "universe" such that the whole of our universe is running at snail pace. This would make sense too when you think about "instantaneous" action at a distance with quantum stuff.Those are interesting thoughts, but instantaneous action at a distance is not possible in the ISU, just like a perfect vacuum is not possible. I do like to go on about my quantum thinking, and my version of quantum gravity, and yes, there are energy density levels where actions occur more rapidly than in others, clocks run faster, gravitational waves go faster, but never instantly; not even at the quantum level in the ISU. There is always a time delay as long as there is energy density, and there is always some level of energy density because there can be no perfect vacuum.
Quote
If you don't have that faster time, you can't have a time slowed by energy density because it isn't running slower than the faster time that the model doesn't have.I tried several different responses to that, but none of them seemed to make sense, lol.
Quote
If you make sure you have removed absolute time from the simulation, the simulation will cease to function correctly. Indeed, it will fail to function altogether. You cannot have coordination of different "times" without one of them governing the other(s).I can believe that, but I’m not certain …
A Group of Blind Men and an Elephant
A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. In the case of the first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said, "elephant is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear.
________________
Ok, I know I’ve gone philosophical again, but the challenge for each of us is to try understand another man’s “elephant” without being able to see it. Until we communicate, we are just the blind leading the blind. It wouldn’t surprise me to find out that we are all in the Group of Blind Men from time to time. After all, we are talking about the strangest “elephant” of all, the as yet unknown nature of the universe, and only being able to know it from what someone else says their piece of it feels like.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/01/2019 14:46:14
Post by: David Cooper on 09/01/2019 19:58:28
It will not. So long at the path doesn't change, the frequency of the light cannot possibly change in any one frame.
Picture a tank of water a lightyear long with a laser beam skimming over its surface. Raise the level of the water in just one second such that the light beam is now in water rather than air. Has there been an instant change in the number of waves in the light? No. Has the light slowed down? Yes. Has the frequency dropped? Yes, though not for the light entering the tank at the end. You couldn't actually do that with water as it would reflect the light away on contact when you change the water height, but it could work if done with a changing gravity well instead, and the change in frequency would for a while match the change in the detector's clock (a light clock) such that no change in frequency would be detected by that observer even though there would be a real change in frequency.
Note too that the reverse happens when the water level is lowered - if we wait until all the light in the water has entered at the end rather than being engulfed by the water-level change, when we lower the water (again in a second), the frequency of that light will genuinely be higher (until we run out of all the light that had been passing through water).
Post by: Halc on 09/01/2019 23:40:19
Pretty devious. The water won't work for the reasons stated, and gravity can't just be switched on, but it sort of can if you have a pair of massive rods that can be set close by or further away.It will not. So long at the path doesn't change, the frequency of the light cannot possibly change in any one frame.
Picture a tank of water a lightyear long with a laser beam skimming over its surface. Raise the level of the water in just one second such that the light beam is now in water rather than air.
...
You couldn't actually do that with water as it would reflect the light away on contact when you change the water height, but it could work if done with a changing gravity well instead, and the change in frequency would for a while match the change in the detector's clock (a light clock) such that no change in frequency would be detected by that observer even though there would be a real change in frequency.
I think it is better done with something like letting gas in (from all sides) that changes the refractive index without the problem of the surface level reflecting the beam away. I also imagine some solid that changes its refractive index when a charge is applied to it. This might actually exist, used as sort of an electrical lens with solid state focus. Point is, I'm not going to attempt to invalidate this interesting example.
Quote
Has there been an instant change in the number of waves in the light? No.Very questionable. Light doesn't come in waves, it comes in photons. So before the laser has the beam in sync and it comes out as essentially one countable wave. I suspect our alteration will just result in photons that are no longer in sync, and thus a count of the number of waves is meaningless.
Quote
Has the light slowed down? Yes.Mostly yes. If we do it with gravity, it isn't slowed by a local measurement, but you have this absolute idea of speed, so I'll say yes, it slows down.
That means that the pipe is filling up. It has these spread-out photons, and a year later it is full of synced packed photons. After about a year, the output will abruptly resemble the original beam. Until then, what do we see coming out, moving once again at speed? A less bright light of the original color? Any given photon has the original energy, but there are not as many coming out, so that's my guess.
Turn off the pipe (gas out or gravity away) and it takes a year to empty the excess photons, so the output is extra bright for a year.
Quote
Has the frequency dropped? Yes, though not for the light entering the tank at the end.Questionable again. The number of photons going by per second mid-pipe has dropped at first. Not sure how you would measure the frequency of a photon while still in there. I think it depends on if gas or gravity was the agent. Expose it to photographic film and see what color it shows. Would film in the gas show different color than film in the gravity field? How big of refraction/dilation would be needed to tell the difference?
Yes, they have spectrometers, but it is sort of like measuring the beam after it exits the pipe, not while still in it.
Post by: David Cooper on 10/01/2019 19:11:14
The water won't work for the reasons stated, and gravity can't just be switched on, but it sort of can if you have a pair of massive rods that can be set close by or further away.
If you have a gravity well with changing length contraction on it due to the source(s) making rapid changes in direction of travel, then you effectively have gravity being turned up and down, and the change can be rapid and near-instantaneous along a long length of the path the signal's travelling along (perpendicular to the gravitational source).
Quote
Light doesn't come in waves, it comes in photons.
It has a wave nature with crests and troughs. A measurement of frequency is (at the lowest level) a measurement of how many crests arrive in a given length of time. The distance between two crests doesn't change as the gravity well changes shape.
Quote
Not sure how you would measure the frequency of a photon while still in there. I think it depends on if gas or gravity was the agent. Expose it to photographic film and see what color it shows. Would film in the gas show different color than film in the gravity field? How big of refraction/dilation would be needed to tell the difference?
With gravity, it's easy - the film will have its functionality slowed and the crests will arrive less often, the two effects cancelling each other out. With the tank of water (or gas) and a light clock, what we could do to measure the frequency is use the light in the laser beam for the light clock too, splitting some out from it, but because the two light beams are clearly the same frequency, there isn't any need to bother comparing the two - the effect of the slowing must automatically be masked, though only temporarily due to the curve in the shape of the gravity well. In a real case, the masking would be imperfect, but it could for certain geometries make the effect we want to detect much harder to pick out.
Post by: David Cooper on 11/01/2019 19:05:31
If you have a gravity well with changing length contraction on it due to the source(s) making rapid changes in direction of travel, then you effectively have gravity being turned up and down, and the change can be rapid and near-instantaneous along a long length of the path the signal's travelling along (perpendicular to the gravitational source).I read that about 6 times and could not figure out what you're trying to describe.
Picture a spherical gravity well. Draw a circle to represent it on paper, and the line will represent a contour of equal gravitational pull. Now take the central object which generates the gravity well and move it at 86.6c across the page, or imagine the page moving at that speed so that you don't have to move the object. The gravity well must contract to half its rest length in the direction of travel, so if the object's moving upwards, you should imagine the page moving down instead and the circle should be contracted into an ellipse with its shortest diameter half the size of its longest diameter (if diameter's the right word to use when dealing with an ellipse).
Now, there could be two black holes of equal mass forming our object, and they're orbiting each other, but both of them will always be moving in opposite directions and will have length contraction applying on them in the same direction. A quarter of an orbit further on, the length contraction will be applying perpendicular to the way it was applying before. What you'd actually get would be like an ellipse rotating.
Now, draw a dot somewhere inside the original circle, but outside of the original ellipse. Then rotate the ellipse and visualise the line crossing the dot. Zoom in on the dot and observe how the line that crosses it looks more and more straight. For the dot and the space to either side of it, gravity is effectively being turned up and down just as if someone was controlling it with a slider switch. If you do this with the dot far enough away from the black holes, the changes in the speed of functionality of the dot's light detector will be masked by the changes in the speed of the laser light, making the frequency appear constant.
Quote
Quote[Light] has a wave nature with crests and troughs. A measurement of frequency is (at the lowest level) a measurement of how many crests arrive in a given length of time. The distance between two crests doesn't change as the gravity well changes shape.This seems like conjecture, and in this example, it might not turn out to work the way you're describing it.
If light is a wave, each photon must be spread out over a distance with a frequency which manifests itself as a side-to-side movement of the wave. If you try to turn all of that into nothing more than point particles, the frequency is going to be lost, and so will the ability to red or blue shift it.
Quote
Surely light coming from a star at color X is not all in phase, and measurement of the wavelength of it isn't done by counting crests over time. Twice as much green is still green. I suspect they measure the energy of each photon and extrapolate the wavelength from that. That's how eyes do it.
To detect sound of a specific frequency, you can do it by having something that resonates at a particular frequency so that the crests and troughs (which are the same thing if we aren't dealing with surface waves) cause it to move to and fro in response to the wave passing. Have lots of these things, like hairs in the ear which are tuned to different frequencies, and you are effectively identifying frequency by "counting" crests. If two lots of the same frequency of sound arrive simultaneously, they can cancel each other out and not be detected, but they can also add together and make a stronger signal. In the same way, two photons can be less easy to detect than one if they happen to cancel each other out at the detector - all the energy is still present, but it can be made incapable of interacting usefully with the detector in such a case, so the only energy that can be counted up is the energy transferred to the detector, making something in the detector move differently (i.e. an electron). Send ten photons in at once and there's very little chance of them all being cancelled out entirely, but most of the signal will still be missed due to it being cancelled out. Crucially though, the more photons that are involved, the bigger the component of uncancelled energy there will be able to drive the detector. If the energy absorbed has to be single photons, then you need to have some kind of quantum system which allows the photons to be provisionally captured and not captured at the same time, and then you have a simplification where the state is simplified, meaning that some of the photons in two states lose their captured form (and continue on unaffected by the provisional interactions with the detector) while others lose the uncaptured form (and become fully captured).
Post by: David Cooper on 12/01/2019 21:54:48
Orbiting black holes are a lousy example since each one deforms the ring of equal potential of the other, so it isn't a circle anymore.
If you're close to the black holes, that would be messier, but they may only be a few tens of miles apart while the observer could be a million miles away.
Quote
OK, I get that, but what does the dot represent?
The dot is the observer, sitting in the gravity well(s) of the black holes. A signal comes to the dot from a great distance, perhaps directly overhead (perpendicular to the page). The dot can either hover in position, or it can slowly orbit the pair of black holes.
Quote
I think you're picturing two black holes, but there is no aiming a beam of light at the dot, which is not a fixed location. You aim it near one of the singularities or not. Nothing is changing a perspective.
Our observer is ignoring the black holes and is looking at the signal source instead. As the gravity wells change shape, the observer's functionality speeds up and slows down. The signal, which could be a laser beam, operates at a constant frequency (and the frequency of the light is always the same in proportion to the frequency of pulses, so you could monitor the pulse rate instead of the light frequency if you want - this allows you to determine the frequency by counting pulses directly.
By the way, now that I'm picturing a rotating elliptical gravity well, I realise that the straight line (a contour line of depth in the well) crossing the dot will be at a different angle for when the dot is going deeper and when it's going shallower, so anything approaching perfect masking of the effect is impossible.
Quote
Light has a wave-like nature in some ways. I don't think anybody says light is a wave. Waves are not things, they're effects of multiple things.
How does it work with radio waves? What does an aerial do, and what does an antenna do when transmitting? We get movement of electrons, and something makes them move to and fro at a frequency. A wave is produced by moving the electrons in this way, and a wave being absorbed causes electrons to move in this way too. The manner of movement of the electrons sends out sine waves. Some kinds of radio pick out radio waves with a specific orientation, just like using a polarising filter with light.
Quote
]Light isn't point particles either, despite it having particle-like nature at times. You seem to be attributing classical properties to a very non-classic entity.
Then you have a distribution of the particle which has the frequency built into that distribution, just like a wave.
Quote
Ears (a 0-D matrix) resonate at thousands of frequencies, which do a mechanical Fourier transform on the waves and send that result to the signal processor.
I'd call it an mechanical alternative to a Fourier transform. I wrote a program to analyse sound which works more like the ear instead of using the usual FFT method, and it produces good results (unsurprisingly, given that we know the ear does a good job). I simply do a lot of additions and subtractions with the results going into buckets which record the amount of resonance for the frequency they're tuned to.
Quote
I agree sort of, but then why does focused light from a random source (the sun say, which hardly puts out synced laser light) not just cancel itself to almost nothing? No, it fries the ant. Most of the signal does not in fact go missing. Where would the energy go if it canceled? Seems to violate conservation.
The unbalanced component will always be bigger (on average) for a given amount of energy in the signal, just as happens with a choir singing - they don't cancel each other out entirely, although to a large extent the signal is cancelled out at any given location, the energy passing without its full power being detected by the ear. A person standing behind you will hear a different signal from you, some of what you heard being cancelled out while some of the stuff you missed is audible to them. I clearly don't understand this stuff well enough though, because in the light case, if the uncancelled component is absorbed by the atoms nearest the surface of the ant, the rest would continue to cancel each other out all the way through it and then go deep into the ground beneath it too, so that might be a good topic for a new thread.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/01/2019 00:30:13
That is why I picked up on the “What happened before the Big Bang” thread over in the Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology sub-forum, started by “guest48150” who seems to have left TNS all together (leaving his thread with the classic title adrift). I saw it as an opportunity to discuss preconditions in a hard science sub-forum, and so I brought up the cold spot.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75868.msg565389#msg565389 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75868.msg565389#msg565389)