[Bogie_smiles]

ripping off and paraphrasing lines from Casablanca is not worthy of you Bogie.

(as well as stealing names from said movie).

you've been Googling .

[jimbobghost]

no need to...I have never fallen out of love with Ingrid Bergman.

[Bogie_smiles]

We are dating ourselves, lol.


https://itunes.apple.com/US/movie/id282640192

[David Cooper]

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

(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.

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.

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.

[jimbobghost]

David,

your highly intellectual post is interrupting a meaningless, maudlin, rush of memories of some old romantics

[Bogie_smiles]

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 fact that you are an “absolute timer”, and I am a “no absolute timer” causes us to elaborate on physics from two different perspectives.

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?

[jimbobghost]

"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?"

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.

[Bogie_smiles]

… 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.

I think he meant that those who share their sandwiches when they reach the mountain top will be rewarded with great deserts.

[guest39538]

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 . 

[Colin2B]

Happy birthday @Bogie_smiles
May you enjoy many more thinking years (and the patience to ignore life’s fools)

[Bogie_smiles]

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?

[Bogie_smiles]

Happy birthday @Bogie_smiles
May you enjoy many more thinking years (and the patience to ignore life’s fools)

Thank you for remembering my birthday (as I pretend not to remember reminding everyone, and which I know the software does anyway, lol).

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  .

[guest39538]

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?

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 .

[Bogie_smiles]

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 .

Ok, back to the drawing board for you, lol. But wait, maybe the simplest approach is to take your suggestion. It's a miracle!

[David Cooper]

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 fact that you are an “absolute timer”, and I am a “no absolute timer” causes us to elaborate on physics from two different perspectives.

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.]

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.

[guest39538]

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 . 

[ATMD]

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.

[Bogie_smiles]

Reply #97
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).

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.

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 .

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?

[Bogie_smiles]

Reply #98
Bogie’s reply to Thebox’s post #95

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 .

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.


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.

[Bogie_smiles]

Reply #99
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.

Btw Science is not a dogma, our world views change with new findings and discoveries.

Yes, well said.