[Bogie_smiles]

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.



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.

[Bogie_smiles]

Reply #266


@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


coupled with the cold spot anomaly,


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.

[David Cooper]

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.

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.

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.

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.]

[Halc]

[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.

[Bogie_smiles]

Reply#269

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.

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?

[David Cooper]

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.

[David Cooper]

...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?

[Halc]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Bogie_smiles]

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. 

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.

[David Cooper]

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.

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.

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.

[David Cooper]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Halc]

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.
Unclear if you're explicitly trying to design a different gravity wave detector here.

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.

[Bogie_smiles]

…

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.

[David Cooper]

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).

[David Cooper]

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.

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.

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).

[Bogie_smiles]

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.

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.

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.

[Bogie_smiles]

I have to finish watching this, so I’m putting this in the Dogma thread for future reference:

[David Cooper]

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).

[Halc]

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

[David Cooper]

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).

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.

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.