[Bogie_smiles]

sorry Bogie,


I must for once disagree.


there comes a time to lay down the sword (or your principles), when you come to the conclusion you are dealing with either those unworthy of combat, or those unable to reasonably dispute your values.

It is an art, negotiating one’s position without aggressive discord. The discussion has laid out the ground we stand on; the poem expressed an acceptance of a differing position, and acknowledges that no one has to give ground without being shown superior evidence.


What comes next?
Physical proof?
Superior logic?
Peer support?
Future exchanges?


The clock is ticking, but the question is, is it ticking away in absolute time or not?


The answer is agreed; it is not ticking in absolute increments, but is the logic that it can theoretically be transformed to absolute time sound logic? Not unless we can quantify at what rate it is that we would have to transform to too.


Still room for debate.


And as one might expect, the debate will continue...  see replies #209 and #217. How is that for a prediction :tongue in cheek:?

[jimbobghost]

[Bogie_smiles]

In this instance, I would prefer the council of the S&G hit, “I Am a Rock”.


A rock can feel no pain, an island never cries.

[ATMD]

Applies to both @David Cooper @Bogie_smiles
Advice On Absolutes, a poem




Life is a learning institute
Where no class bells will chime
But not one fact brings no dispute
And certainly not time.


Some will say time is absolute
Just like they’ll say of space.
But then surely some will refute   
Theres Absolutes in place.


So stand your line, and don’t stay mute,
Or make apology.
Stand up for things beyond refute,
In your cosmology

Thank you, I always appreciate creative writing, it is a powerful way to send a message

[jimbobghost]

"Thank you, I always appreciate creative writing, it is a powerful way to send a message"

I concur.

I encourage Bogie to find a musician with whom to collaborate; and release the next great religious/pop hit!

[Bogie_smiles]

"Thank you, I always appreciate creative writing, it is a powerful way to send a message"


I concur.


I encourage Bogie to find a musician with whom to collaborate; and release the next great religious/pop hit!

Not going to happen, not even an inkling in my eye, lol.


My interest is in evolving the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model, as a layman science enthusiasts cosmology of the universe. In its current version, having evolved since its earliest inklings which I would place in 2001, it has always been both a quantum mechanical wave-energy scenario (Quantum Wave Mechanics), and a philosophy (Eternal Intent) derived from the mechanical scenarios.




An old poem about the ISU
Meteorites, the poem


The Universe, a quiet place, is home to our existence,
But surely the perspective skews when viewed from such  a  distance.
Big Bangs blast out the building blocks of life's regeneration,
In places far, imponder'ble, beyond imagination.


No start of time, no end of space; a wave energy domain,
A place where God and Universe seem essentially the same.
What guides your acts; your own freewill, to be cast responsibly,
Take caution then, false words and deeds, affect life predictably.


Yet life is so undaunted that perpetually its found there,
Created or evolved it seems to spring form almost nowhere.
From galaxies,  to holes of black, dark matter and neutrinos,
Where endlessly life's dice are tossed in cosmic class casinos.


Explosions then, great cataclysms, booms, its an inferno,
Our beings shoot like meteors, traversing space eternal.
The roles that we have just disposed are not the final curtain,
We'll  star as sparkling meteorites, leading roles  for certain.

[jimbobghost]

is it my imagination, or is Bogie channeling Nostradamus?

[ATMD]

Yet life is so undaunted that perpetually its found there,
Created or evolved it seems to spring form almost nowhere.
From galaxies,  to holes of black, dark matter and neutrinos,
Where endlessly life's dice are tossed in cosmic class casinos.

This has got to be my favorite, you've got skills man

Btw as a believer of ISU, what is the official explanation for the origin of life 

[Bogie_smiles]

Btw as a believer of ISU, what is the official explanation for the origin of life 

In the ISU, life has always existed, and is generative and evolvative.

“Generative” means that in any hospitable environment associated with big bang arenas, generally referring to planets in the goldilocks zones around stars, but anywhere across the landscape of the greater universe, there is an iterative process of life generation going on all the time. That process relies on the probability that iterations of every combination of the elements and physical conditions can naturally and randomly occur over time. When the right combinations and conditions fall into place, life arises in the form of molecules that are capable of replicating themselves. Given favorable conditions and some successful random iterations, these living molecules evolve all the way from self-generation and replication, to self-awareness and intelligence.

The generation of life from the elements and environmental conditions is a mainstay of the ISU model. The premise is that, given the infinite past and infinite future, life always has and always will exist abundantly throughout hospitable host sites that are everywhere in mature big bang arenas.

Highly evolved life forms can reach great heights of intelligence and capabilities, and will learn to employ all available resources. The ability of highly intelligent life forms to migrate throughout solar systems, throughout galaxies, and even to escape the catastrophes associated with big bang arena action is expected to be a fact. Such advanced lifeforms with lengthy heritages might just be able to slip out into the corridors of continuity, i.e., the space that connects the multiple big bang arena events across the landscape of the greater universe, and cross populate whole arenas, at the same time life is being self-generated in those same environments.

Who knows what life is like out there?

[David Cooper]

You do have pretty detailed scenarios related to absolute time and space. I wonder what the list of absolutes includes, i.e., time, space, the speed of light in vacua, and I suppose many absolute values like that. Can you give me a little insight into to the path you followed that guides to adopt absolute time and space?

Our measurements show us that light consistently travels at the same speed through space (for a given depth in a gravity well, and that it varies in a predictable way at different heights in a gravity well). In that, we already see that space and time must be extremely consistent things - they give us the same results for experiments over and over again. We run experiments which show us the functionality of clocks being slowed by movement through space (and by depth in a gravity well). We run the MMX experiment and see that the apparatus must contract in length its direction of travel, but always in a predictable way. We know that space must be more than nothing because if there was literally nothing between us and a neighbouring star, that star would be touching us - there could be no distance between us. Something physical has to be there to support the phenomenon of distance. (In a simulation you can use coordinates instead and crunch numbers to calculate how far apart things are, but that's an abstraction - the real universe isn't computing like that [unless it's a simulation, but physics should be focused on the idea that it's real]). Assuming then that the universe is real rather than a simulation, space must be a fabric of some kind.

As we send two lots of light round different paths to get from A to B, we get predictable results - time isn't speeding up and slowing down in random ways in different places, and space maintains separations predictably rather than having distances between two things continually vary in random ways. There's a very precise mechanism in play behind everything we see. If time was behaving in unpredictable ways, we'd see distortions in space between ourselves and distant stars and galaxies. The only distortion we see though is predictable gravitational lensing. When we send light from A to B and back many times and run a clock at A, we notice that the time of each trip is the same as the one before - the long light clock ticks at the same rate as the short light clock if we adjust to make the light travel the same distance between ticks for each clock. The movement of light through space in such a predictable way depends on a time that's highly consistent. Space and time are fundamentals, and light travels through a given length of space in a set amount of time (unless it's slowed by being in a gravity well).

Can time run slow for some clocks if those clocks run slow? Not if it's a moving clock - we can see the mechanism by which the clock runs slow and we know that the light in a moving light clock is still moving at the same rate through space as it would if the clock was stationary, so we are not fooled by the clock running slow. If we put a clock down a gravity well, we are not fooled by it running slow either because the speed of light is slower down there - we know that time is not running slow there, but that the clock is. We also know that the clock isn't taking a shortcut into the future by being in a gravity well - it is simply ticking more slowly while passing through the same amount of time as a clock right at the top of the well, and we can check this by moving them apart and then moving them back together - if one of them had taken a shortcut into the future, we would see an event-meshing failure and the laws of physics would break because we see them meeting up and can knock them against each other, but a shortcut into the future would mean that the one that took the shortcut would fail to collide with the other clock because that other clock wouldn't be there yet when the shortcut taker arrives at the reunion point. It's really simple to demonstrate this with a simulation, but all the people who simulate theories without absolute time have to sneak it into the simulation to coordinate the action while pretending they haven't done so. Their models simply cannot work the way they claim, and it's extraordinary that they're able to get away with cheating like that even after they've been found out, but so few people can get their head round this stuff that they simply aren't capable of checking the facts. Those who are so sure they're right though have an obligation to show a working simulation of their model that doesn't cheat by smuggling in absolute time. They refuse to do so.

[ATMD]

Given that life has already existed for an infinite amount of time, certain life forms would be so advanced and developed that any possible method of transportation has been learned and mastered, any knowledge about this universe has been acquired, they must be so high tech that they consider us modern humans as how we consider bacteria.

They would also probably be laughing at our feeble technology 

[Bogie_smiles]

Given that life has already existed for an infinite amount of time, certain life forms would be so advanced and developed that any possible method of transportation has been learned and mastered, any knowledge about this universe has been acquired, they must be so high tech that they consider us modern humans as how we consider bacteria.

They would also probably be laughing at our feeble technology 

Maybe, but possibly high evolution involves a process of cleaning up the human genome, and the human flaws that we all know about might be filtered out of the mix in the genome of those highly advanced and developed life forms.

I’m sure there would still be some humor seen in the slow struggling progress of man, but I think from such a perspective, there comes an appreciation for the struggle. There are odds that any single intelligent life form like ours faces, and maybe the posture of the super-advanced is to cautiously lend a hand.

[ATMD]

maybe the posture of the super-advanced is to cautiously lend a hand.[/font][/color]

That would be wonderful 

[Bogie_smiles]

That would be wonderful 

If I didn’t mention it, part of the philosophy of the ISU includes maintaining a positive attitude, lol.

[ATMD]

That would be wonderful 

If I didn’t mention it, part of the philosophy of the ISU includes maintaining a positive attitude, lol.

To be honest this should be a strict policy. Only people with a positive attitude allowed to join ISU 

[Bogie_smiles]

To be honest this should be a strict policy. Only people with a positive attitude allowed to join ISU 

I wish . 


But in the ISU everything is relative to something else. I guess we have to face the fact that the ISU rules are the invariant natural laws of the universe, and they're already set. On the other hand, our personal philosophy of life allows us to set our own rules to live by. That is good because we can decide to require a positive attitude, and we can decide when to change our philosophy, lol.

[ATMD]

To be honest this should be a strict policy. Only people with a positive attitude allowed to join ISU 

I wish . 


But in the ISU everything is relative to something else. I guess we have to face the fact that the ISU rules are the invariant natural laws of the universe, and they're already set. On the other hand, our personal philosophy of life allows us to set our own rules to live by. That is good because we can decide to require a positive attitude, and we can decide when to change our philosophy, lol.

Very true, ISU is open to everyone 

[Bogie_smiles]

Our measurements show us that light consistently travels at the same speed through space (for a given depth in a gravity well, and that it varies in a predictable way at different heights in a gravity well). In that, we already see that space and time must be extremely consistent things - they give us the same results for experiments over and over again. We run experiments which show us the functionality of clocks being slowed by movement through space (and by depth in a gravity well).

That is well said, and I agree. One point of consistency between us is the speed of light through space is invariant, relative to the position in a gravity well (or as I phrase it, relative to the local gravitational wave energy density profile of space at that location).

When I speak of clocks measuring the rate that time passes, the variable aspect is caused by their positions in the gravity well (i.e., by the relative frequency of the sum of all of the gravitational waves arriving there that have been emitted and traveled there from all of the distant surrounding sources. Those sources are all of the particles and objects out there that have mass, and that are in relative motion to each other). The way I suggest that the invariant natural laws of the universe pull that off is by the precise way that the gravitational wave energy density varies as you change position in a gravity well. After all, any change in position, in any direction, is subject to the gravity well analogy.

...
As we send two lots of light round different paths to get from A to B, we get predictable results - time isn't speeding up and slowing down in random ways in different places, and space maintains separations predictably rather than having distances between two things continually vary in random ways. There's a very precise mechanism in play behind everything we see.

I strongly agree. We are referring to the invariant laws of nature after all, lol. (let me know if you disagree with me about the concept of the “invariant laws of nature”).

If time was behaving in unpredictable ways, we'd see distortions in space between ourselves and distant stars and galaxies.

No one is saying that time is behaving in unpredictable ways, but you seem to be predicting that if time wasn’t absolute, we’d see distortions. That supposition can't be your only basis for invoking absolute time, can it? If so, what is the evidence that there would be your predicted distortions?

Can time run slow for some clocks if those clocks run slow?

We agree that if there was such a thing as absolute time, and that if a given clock itself was running slower than an identical clock in the same position in a gravity well (i.e., where the gravitational wave energy density was the same for both clocks), then if one of the two identical clocks runs slower in the same position in the "well", it is because of some sluggishness or manufacturing imperfection in that peculiar individual clock, and not due to a physical difference in the position in the gravity well (i.e., not due to a difference in the local gravitational wave energy density).

Not if it's a moving clock - we can see the mechanism by which the clock runs slow and we know that the light in a moving light clock is still moving at the same rate through space as it would if the clock was stationary, so we are not fooled by the clock running slow. If we put a clock down a gravity well, we are not fooled by it running slow either because the speed of light is slower down there - we know that time is not running slow there, but that the clock is. We also know that the clock isn't taking a shortcut into the future by being in a gravity well - it is simply ticking more slowly while passing through the same amount of time as a clock right at the top of the well, and we can check this by moving them apart and then moving them back together - ...

We are in agreement in regard to the variable rate that identical clocks would display the difference in the rate of time passing at different “depths” in a gravity well. My view is to say that time simply passes every where, but that the difference shown by clocks measuring it is a function of their relative positions in the gravity well, and therefore due to a difference in the gravitational wave energy density profile of their local space. That thinking doesn't convert to being a suggestion that there is an absolute rate of time passing, as measured by a clock, somewhere out in the deepest possible space; there isn't any place in the universe, as I know it, that time could be measured to pass at some absolute rate, so there is no rate that can be used as a "standard" or absolute rate that all clocks can be measured against, or converted to. This is a strong logical argument, and you should feel obligated to refute it convincingly.


I do want to point out another area where your absolutes seem to break down, and that comes to light when you refer to “moving them (the clocks) apart and then moving them back together”.

I remember asking you about a coordinate system that could allow you to detect exact physical locations in space. If you move the clocks apart and then back together, assuming you intend to move them back to the exact location where they started, over the same paths, how do you determine the exact coordinates of the starting location, and how do you determine that you have returned the clocks, over the same paths, to their exact starting locations?


That is a logical question/argument that comes up in regard to absolute space. As far as I know you have no way of marking the start position, plotting the exact paths, and returning to the exact starting positions (barring @jimbobghost ’s interesting suggestion of leaving bread crumbs; just not sure yet how to make them say put?).

... if one of them had taken a shortcut into the future, we would see an event-meshing failure and the laws of physics would break because we see them meeting up and can knock them against each other, but a shortcut into the future would mean that the one that took the shortcut would fail to collide with the other clock because that other clock wouldn't be there yet when the shortcut taker arrives at the reunion point.

The fact that you acknowledge the difficulty of pulling off the act of separating the clocks, and then getting them back to their original places, your demonstration is not a convincing argument. You can certainly adjust the act of returning the clocks together by cheating, to use your argument, meaning by adjusting the act of returning the clocks to their start positions using visual assistance in regard to the relative positions of the clocks as you move them, and adjusting the return path visually until they are back together. Still, there is no evidence that when they are brought back together even using visual assistance, that they are back to their original positions in absolute space, is there?

It's really simple to demonstrate this with a simulation, but all the people who simulate theories without absolute time have to sneak it into the simulation to coordinate the action while pretending they haven't done so. Their models simply cannot work the way they claim, and it's extraordinary that they're able to get away with cheating like that even after they've been found out, but so few people can get their head round this stuff that they simply aren't capable of checking the facts. Those who are so sure they're right though have an obligation to show a working simulation of their model that doesn't cheat by smuggling in absolute time. They refuse to do so.

The simple demonstrations you suggest will not work, in my world view. They won’t work, not only because there is no absolute time or space in any practical situation, but if there were, you are facing the fact that without bread crumbs and visual “assistance” (which you would call cheating, lol), you cannot pull off the simple demonstrations.

[Bogie_smiles]

is it my imagination, or is Bogie channeling Nostradamus?

@jimbobghost Take another look at reply #200 for some evidence of channeling Nostradamus!

[Bogie_smiles]

I edited the following post to include @chris  and @NakedScientist , which I should have included originally if I wanted them to see it.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75389.msg562500#msg562500