0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
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?
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?).
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?[/font]
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Conclusion: You are saying your position is true by your own authority.
#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.)
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.
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.
So please give me a response that supports the premise that there is absolute time, other than on your own authority.
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.
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, …
… 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.
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.
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.
A question, does AGI stand for artificial general intelligence, or 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.
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.
Do you want to brief me on your credentials as they relate to your credibility in regard to scientific issues?
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 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.
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.)
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.
Those three infinites are fine with me - they don't interfere with the thing we want to test.
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...
Did it get all of that right?
How do I relate the rate that the clock ticks, to the local gravitational wave energy density?
Gravitational time dilation implies that a clock in the gravitational field of a spherically symmetric mass 𝑀, at distance 𝑅from 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·m2is 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.
"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, 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).
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.
Quote from: David Cooper on 20/12/2018 21:03:21So, 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".
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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, 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?
How to you explain mechanically, how mass curves spacetime?