[guest39538]

The paradox is that multiple systems, side by side, operating in the tiny Plank increments of time and distance, can be out of sync with each other,

How can time be out of sync if we used a time Planck, surely the constant of light over such a negligible distance  would be constant for all observers?

Solely from my perspective, if two systems are separated by some distance, my take on the relativity of simultaneity says that the same increment of time can’t occur simultaneously for both systems.

The relativity of simultaneity fails if time dilation is explained away.   The only simultaneity I have found is the difference in timing of seeing things. 
If an observer on Earth was using a Planck light clock and an observer on planet x was using an identical clock, I would be pretty confident that our relative timing would be synchronous at rest or in motion.
But in all honestly I do not think I fully understand simultaneity. What are they saying by this?

[Bogie_smiles]

The relativity of simultaneity fails if time dilation is explained away.   The only simultaneity I have found is the difference in timing of seeing things. 
If an observer on Earth was using a Planck light clock and an observer on planet x was using an identical clock, I would be pretty confident that our relative timing would be synchronous at rest or in motion.
But in all honestly I do not think I fully understand simultaneity. What are they saying by this?

I understand it to mean that no event happens simultaneously for any two observers in relative motion with each other.

[guest39538]

The relativity of simultaneity fails if time dilation is explained away.   The only simultaneity I have found is the difference in timing of seeing things. 
If an observer on Earth was using a Planck light clock and an observer on planet x was using an identical clock, I would be pretty confident that our relative timing would be synchronous at rest or in motion.
But in all honestly I do not think I fully understand simultaneity. What are they saying by this?

I understand it to mean that no two events happen simultaneously for any two observers in relative motion with each other.

That is roughly what I thought.  Yes if we used tP (time Planck) I can show simultaneous. The simultaneity they mention I refer to  sight related. If the Sun was to explode for example, a person on Mercury would see it happen before a person on Earth. (Dependent to sight working like we think it works).

It is interesting that if we look at the Lorentz length contractions and remove the length of the carriage replacing it with tP, it shows no length contraction.  What are you thoughts on the thought experiment of the Lorentz contractions?


tp.jpg (14.7 kB . 985x507 - viewed 4496 times)

In the original , the observe sees the light to angle , this only because of the imaginary discrete time.

Now if we were to use tP removing the added distance of future time, the observer observes a linearity of the light.

[guest39538]

tp0.jpg (23.51 kB . 898x572 - viewed 4367 times)

In the above example the observer observes the light/dot moving in respect to the carriage. If the carriage was moving at 5 mph, the observer would observe the light to be travelling at 5 mph.  Would you agree with that?

[Petrochemicals]

π is the standard next moment colculated from this one.

I am not totally sure what you mean by that, I worked out the PI constant part, but circles have curves and curves are a longer path than a linear. I am not sure how circular could calculate a linear?

Well its the rate of change ? The unmeasurable analogue difference. Why is the need for linear time so accepted, if space can be curved why not time ? Infact it must be curved to allow time to progress if time dilation relativity etc are true ?. If you where a twin orbiting the planet you may want to turn around every now and again so the right side of you does not end up looking alot different in age than the left !

[Bogie_smiles]

That is roughly what I thought.  Yes if we used tP (time Planck) I can show simultaneous. The simultaneity they mention I refer to  sight related. If the Sun was to explode for example, a person on Mercury would see it happen before a person on Earth. (Dependent to sight working like we think it works).

It is interesting that if we look at the Lorentz length contractions and remove the length of the carriage replacing it with tP, it shows no length contraction.  What are you thoughts on the thought experiment of the Lorentz contractions?



In the original , the observe sees the light to angle , this only because of the imaginary discrete time.

Now if we were to use tP removing the added distance of future time, the observer observes a linearity of the light.

There is no reason to believe that you saw my post on my ISU thread about the difference between the cause of a LIGO event between General Relativity Theory, and some layman science enthusiast’s ideas (my ideas), but my answer to your post about the thought experiment of the Lorentz contractions is along the same lines, so forgive me for mentioning it.

If an event like the sun exploding were to occur, I would say that it occurred at a point in time. But the early discussion on this thread suggests the thinking that time is not a real physical characteristic of the universe, since it is always “now” for each observer, and those nows all feature different locations of the observation, like seeing the sun explode would.

Any past event has already happened on the time continuum. The operative thinking we run into is that events that occur on the time continuum are recorded relative to an individual observer, and so there are as many different on-going time continuums as there are observers.

In SR/GR, and I’m no expert and wouldn’t argue very hard to defend this position, LIGO detects an event when the time elapsed between the two lasers pointed down and back each arm differs. GR says the difference is due to length contraction caused by the gravitational wave affecting the length of the arms, and when the first arm is length contracted, before the other arm, the alarm is activated, and a LIGO event is recorded.

My view is that the length of the arms is not affected by length contraction as the gravitational wave passes, but instead, the wave energy density of the space along the arm’s paths changes as the gravitational wave passes. The premise is that the speed of light varies relative to the wave energy density of the space it is traversing, and if the wave energy density is different along each LIGO arm as a result of the passing high energy gravitational wave, then the light speed will be different along each arm, and the alarm is activated, and a LIGO event is recorded.

In the first case the gravitational wave changed the length of the arms relative to each other as it passed, one arm and then the next. In the second case, the gravitational wave changed the speed of light along the two arms respectively as it passed, one arm and then the other.

Lorentz transformations are theory specific, and if you move from SR/GR, to some other version that you may come up with, tP or contraction vs. light speed, or any other idea, you will get different explanations for the same observation.

[guest39538]

π is the standard next moment colculated from this one.

I am not totally sure what you mean by that, I worked out the PI constant part, but circles have curves and curves are a longer path than a linear. I am not sure how circular could calculate a linear?

Well its the rate of change ? The unmeasurable analogue difference. Why is the need for linear time so accepted, if space can be curved why not time ? Infact it must be curved to allow time to progress if time dilation relativity etc are true ?. If you where a twin orbiting the planet you may want to turn around every now and again so the right side of you does not end up looking alot different in age than the left !

A curved time would be always dilated relative to a linear time.  We would make ourselves problems if we used a constant dilation.

[guest39538]

My view is that the length of the arms is not affected by length contraction as the gravitational wave passes, but instead, the wave energy density of the space along the arm’s paths changes as the gravitational wave passes. The premise is that the speed of light varies relative to the wave energy density of the space it is traversing, and if the wave energy density is different along each LIGO arm as a result of the passing high energy gravitational wave, then the light speed will be different along each arm, and the alarm is activated, and a LIGO event is recorded.

I am finding it hard to comment on this because I do not really understand LIGO or do I think there is a gravitational wave .

[Bogie_smiles]

I am finding it hard to comment on this because I do not really understand LIGO or do I think there is a gravitational wave .

Not understanding LIGO can be remedied using your favorite search engine. If you study the instrument and the theory behind why it works, you will begin to gain knowledge about gravitational waves at the same time.

As for not being ready to comment on my views, I understand, because my views go way beyond the point that a person just in the process of making sense out of generally accepted physics and cosmology is ready for. It is a long slow process to go beyond the boundary of known science and get into speculations about the “as yet” unknowns. Just remember some advice from me, that learning science works best if you see it as being made up of a set of invariant natural laws, and as yet, we only know or understand some portion of them.

[guest39538]

I am finding it hard to comment on this because I do not really understand LIGO or do I think there is a gravitational wave .

Not understanding LIGO can be remedied using your favorite search engine. If you study the instrument and the theory behind why it works, you will begin to gain knowledge about gravitational waves at the same time.

As for not being ready to comment on my views, I understand, because my views go way beyond the point that a person just in the process of making sense out of generally accepted physics and cosmology is ready for. It is a long slow process to go beyond the boundary of known science and get into speculations about the “as yet” unknowns. Just remember some advice from me, that learning science works best if you see it as being made up of a set of invariant natural laws, and as yet, we only know or understand some portion of them.

My notions on gravity do extend beyond mainstream physics.   Like yourself I look for answers to questions that have no real answer.   In sense it is ironic to say we do not know the mechanism of gravity but then explain it as a gravitational wave or gravitational field.   I think a gravitational field explains gravity mechanism exactly except not exact.   I tend to unify fields in to a single polarity field that I call the N-field,  N standing for neutral.  However the neutral is not the true measurement , we in affect are measuring two independent things at the same time that gives a null result, one cancelling the other out to measure N. However I believe the individual properties of the N-field remain individual properties.  Likewise polarity repelling and opposite polarities attracting to create orbital radius an din essence a Quantum field that has solidity to other Quantum fields.

I will though look up the LIG0 and try to get my head around it. 

 

[guest39538]

What are your thoughts on the mechanics of the workings of  gravity?

[Bogie_smiles]

What are your thoughts on the mechanics of the workings of  gravity?

I’m always careful not to hijack people’s threads, so stop me when you have had enough. My ISU thread covers my views, but if you search the thread for the word “gravity”, you get well over 100 hits, . You may recall getting into that thread with me; it is the “If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs" thread. Reply #31, for example. I had stated my axioms, including the three infinities of space, time, and energy, and had made a statement that in my view the universe has always existed. That means that there has always been matter and energy, hospitable environments to host life, and intelligent life forms inhabiting planets, around suns, in galaxies, in Big Bang arenas, across the arena landscape of the greater universe. A steady state cosmology in an infinite, eternal, and dynamic single universe, full of life, and featuring on-going Big Bang arena action that defeats entropy, and quantum action that establishes the presence of wave-particles and maintains quantum gravity. Remember?

Matter and energy go through processes that can negate existing matter into wave energy, and where wave energy then establishes the presence of wave-particles of matter. Quantum gravity is one of two major forces in my model, the other is energy density equalization (expansion for short). The influence of both forces is always present at all points in space, but the balance between them varies according limits and thresholds of energy density. That balance is orchestrated by the wave energy density profile of the local space, which changes while the dynamic process of arena action and quantum action perpetually are playing out.

Wave-particles are described in detail, and the process of quantum action is explained, which describes my view of the wave mechanics of quantum gravity.

It is an audacious expression of layman science enthusiasm, evolving as time goes on over more than the past decade. It is like a hobby I do while I wait and watch as the professionals in the scientific community continue growing their improving consensus on all matters scientific.

[guest39538]

I had stated my axioms, including the three infinities of space, time, and energy,

I do no think that you could possibly have axioms when concerning infinite space, time and energy. The reason would be you could never reach an end point to prove it was infinite, the boundary could be just that little bit further.   

that in my view the universe has always existed. That means that there has always been matter and energy,

I would agree that space has always existed and just is.  As for matter and energy , I would have some doubts in my mind of always existing.
My question would be though , how to make something out of nothing?  Now in reality it is hard to think of a Physical process from nothing to something.  But it is no t hard to imagine something out of nothing in a sense of that we could just make things up . i.e The Big Bang

So in respect to that, is it only imagination that imagines nothing to begin with?  Why could we not imagine there was always something?

I am not sure you will understand this, but could you imagine compared to an infinite universe , everything has 0 dimensions?

Imagine looking at any size object and travelling away from it .  The eventually is the object will have 0 dimensions to your observation regardless the size of object.

[Bogie_smiles]

I do no think that you could possibly have axioms when concerning infinite space, time and energy. The reason would be you could never reach an end point to prove it was infinite, the boundary could be just that little bit further.

This is easy to answer, but it requires that you know what is meant when I invoke an axiom. Axioms are often invoked in theoretical physics, too, not just layman models. It means that I can’t prove it, and don’t even try to present proof. It is “axiomatic”, i.e., assumed to be true, or at least necessary to justify the rest of the model that is derived from the axioms. If it can ever be falsified, that would falsify the model.

So until we can look out and actually see that boundary, which I think has the lowest possible probability of being there, zero, I assume the infinity, and no boundary. My spatial axiom can be said to mean that the universe is boundless.

I would agree that space has always existed and just is. 

Let’s then agree that space has always existed, and “just is”. My axiom is that space has always existed and is infinite. You are holding out against the spatial infinity based of the lowest possibility that some boundary could be discovered. Not sure if I could ever be convinced, but we can’t agree on everything

As for matter and energy , I would have some doubts in my mind of always existing.
My question would be though , how to make something out of nothing?

That is one of the points I make in describing the alternatives for the existence of the universe. There are three logical explanations: 1) God did it, which is not scientific. 2) Something from nothing, which is not scientific. 3) Always existed, which is my choice.

Now in reality it is hard to think of a Physical process from nothing to something.  But it is not hard to imagine something out of nothing in a sense of that we could just make things up . i.e The Big Bang.

So in respect to that, is it only imagination that imagines nothing to begin with?  Why could we not imagine there was always something?

It sounds like the "something from nothing" explanation for the existence of the universe is growing on you.

I am not sure you will understand this, but could you imagine compared to an infinite universe , everything has 0 dimensions?

Yes, I have a good imagination, lol.

Imagine looking at any size object and traveling away from it .  The eventually is the object will have 0 dimensions to your observation regardless the size of object.

It sounds like you are brainstorming with yourself . Yes, the observed dimensions would approach 0, but the object will still be there, and will still have its original dimensions, so our distancing ourselves from it is only creating an illusion that its dimensions are shrinking toward 0, agreed?

[guest39538]

You are holding out against the spatial infinity based of the lowest possibility that some boundary could be discovered

In essence I believe logic can show space is infinite.  Because even if a boundary was discovered, we than have a question is the boundary infinite or is there more space beyond the boundary.

1) God did it, which is not scientific. 2) Something from nothing, which is not scientific. 3) Always existed, which is my choice.

There is a few other options and we can look at your number 1 option with a difference.  It depends on how you define God.  God could well be a scientist who creating an intelligent design. Like my friend said we could be no more than a snow globe sitting in the bottom of some kids closet from some kids school science project.

so our distancing ourselves from it is only creating an illusion that its dimensions are shrinking toward 0, agreed?

Yes that's correct, it is a relative illusion to us.  But from the infinite space perspective, it is not an illusion and everything is nothing.

p.s Maybe that is the T.O.E  answer, that everything is relatively nothing to an infinite space. It as if we exist and do not exist at the same time.  I only exist to you if you can see me or hear me and at a distance away you could not see  or hear me. I would have 0 dimensions, although I might be detected as being a ''black hole''.

[Bogie_smiles]

There is a few other options and we can look at your number 1 option with a difference.  It depends on how you define God.  God could well be a scientist who creating an intelligent design. Like my friend said we could be no more than a snow globe sitting in the bottom of some kids closet from some kids school science project.

And the universe could be an atom in a giants thumb.

In regard to modern science, anything that seems Supernatural has natural causes that we don’t yet understand. The standard cosmological model, GR and Inflation, doesn’t address the beginning because the math and theories break down going back from there.

If you invoke a creation on the one hand, or some boundary on the other, you face infinite regression, as you suggest; where did God come from, who created God, who made the boundary, what is beyond the boundary, etc. It is just a simple but hard to accept explanation that the universe has always existed, and is governed by invariant natural laws that feature processes that defeat entropy on a grand scale, like my view of Big Bang Arena Actqion, and that reestablish the presence of wave-particles within new arenas in the aftermath of every local Big Bang, like my view of Quantum Action in my personal model.

The simplicity of the “always existed” explanation suits me just fine.

p.s Maybe that is the T.O.E  answer, that everything is relatively nothing to an infinite space. It as if we exist and do not exist at the same time.  I only exist to you if you can see me or hear me and at a distance away you could not see  or hear me. I would have 0 dimensions, although I might be detected as being a ''black hole''.

That is too contrived for me. If the explanation from the scientific community is that the human mind just can’t understand the universe, then the pursuit of science is a fools game, and I don’t think that for an instant, do you?

[guest39538]

. If the explanation from the scientific community is that the human mind just can’t understand the universe, then the pursuit of science is a fools game, and I don’t think that for an instant, do you?

Understanding something within boundaries ( As far as we can see)  is not the same as things we can't see.  When it comes to things we can't see it becomes pretty much a guessing game.  Do our own  answers of things that we can not see even add up to a suitable explanation of the Universe?  Not really in my opinion. 
To me anything that is discussed that can not be seen , is subjective to a degree.  Do  I think that the pursuit of science is a worthy thing?  Yes we do know a lot of definite facts.

I think the answers of the Universe could be locally. The big question of why the Earth, what is the purpose of humanity.  To me we are prisoners on a rock and science is our escape plan .  The Earth would be the perfect prison as the moon if it had atmosphere.
The imagination can make lots of things up, I try to avoid imagining but instead being that thing.
It may sound bonkers but when I discuss time I am time, when I discuss space I am space, when I discuss the Universe I am the Universe. To be or not be is looking at yourself in the mirror and being you or ''him''.

[Bogie_smiles]

Understanding something within boundaries ( As far as we can see)  is not the same as things we can't see.  When it comes to things we can't see it becomes pretty much a guessing game.  Do our own  answers of things that we can not see even add up to a suitable explanation of the Universe?  Not really in my opinion. 
To me anything that is discussed that can not be seen , is subjective to a degree.  Do  I think that the pursuit of science is a worthy thing?  Yes we do know a lot of definite facts.

I think the answers of the Universe could be locally. The big question of why the Earth, what is the purpose of humanity.  To me we are prisoners on a rock and science is our escape plan .  The Earth would be the perfect prison as the moon if it had atmosphere.
The imagination can make lots of things up, I try to avoid imagining but instead being that thing.
It may sound bonkers but when I discuss time I am time, when I discuss space I am space, when I discuss the Universe I am the Universe. To be or not be is looking at yourself in the mirror and being you or ''him''.

It is always interesting getting other people’s view points.

What you call making things up, I call reasonable and responsible speculation based on known science, and questioning the “as yet” unknown.

When you ask, “Do our own  answers of things that we can not see even add up to a suitable explanation of the Universe?  Not really in my opinion.” I say the ISU model is internally consistent, and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data. You are waving the entire content of the ISU model off with one comment, and saying I’m “making it up”, but you haven’t presented any convincing argument against any of the many of points I share for the purposes of discussion. If you don’t make any specific arguments against what I say, how can I learn and improve the model?

[guest39538]

If you don’t make any specific arguments against what I say, how can I learn and improve the model?

Ok, let us discuss your model, it involves time so why not.

You say an infinite energy.    The problem is you have to say what energy is or you are using a general approach of wording that could mean anything. So what do you mean when you say energy?

p.s because by saying infinite energy, you are saying infinite something.

[Bogie_smiles]

Ok, let us discuss your model, it involves time so why not.

I think if you are interested enough to discuss it on your thread, you should be interested enough to do so on my thread, where many questions you may have are already answered and are on topic.

As for doing the explaining on your thread, I try to stick to your topic, and not hijack it into my topic. “Go there or be square” as they say, lol.


If you decide to go there, I suggest you start with the content in reply #16.