[David Cooper]

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.

There are many theories about the cause of the slowing of clocks in a gravity well, but we needn't worry too much about which is right - all that matters is that either: (1) clocks run slow deeper down and time runs slower too, (2) clocks run slow there but time does not slow, or (3) clocks don't really run slow there but merely appear to while they're actually taking shortcuts into the future. The third option automatically generates event-meshing failures, so it is a fantasy. The first option also breaks because the clock has extra work to do due to the additional activity/stuff that's slowing its ticking, while the ticking only records the part of the action that doesn't include extra stuff that the clock is doing, so time is actually running faster than the clock suggests. (2) is the only viable answer.

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?

Without absolute time, why should time run at the same rate at locations Y and Z where conditions are identical? Why do they actually tick at the same rate instead of time being random and creating a difference between them? The lack of distortions tells us that time is running at practically the same rate in all the remote, empty areas of space, and that isn't by luck. There is a certain amount of action that is allowed by time in a given length of time, and time is a key part of the mechanism behind that uniformity. If you see slower action somewhere and you can see that there is are rational potential explanations for that slowing, having time run slow there too would make those mechanisms redundant. Think carefully about that. Slowing down time to match the speed of the clock would make that slowed time the mechanism for that clock running slow, leaving no role for gravity, gravitational waves or whatever to slow clocks down. And if you imagine that the mechanism involves gravity slowing time and time slowing clocks as a mere consequence of time being slowed, then how is time being slowed? Slowed relative to what? Absolute time? If you don't have an absolute time to slow this time relative to, you can't coordinate your slowed time to time anywhere else - you're breaking a vital mechanism.

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.

You have a slowing mechanism which you're applying everywhere, and that slowing has to be a slowing relative to something. That something is absolute time - without it, how are you going to get coordinated slowing? It doesn't just happen by luck - there's a control mechanism. In every place where you have a slowing mechanism actively slowing the functionality of stuff, you have stuff with its functionality being interrupted by that mechanism and preventing it from recording so much time passing in a given length of absolute time - the time that it's failing to record is the time taken up by the interruptions.

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 was thinking there in terms of one clock staying at a fixed height in a gravity well while the other is lowered away from the first and then raised back up to it again, recording less time appearing to go by during its trip.

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?

You can't tell whether you've done that or not due to the phenomenon of relativity, but you can tell that if you were able to keep one of them stationary and move the other away from it and back again, the one that moved would record less time appearing to pass because the movement will slow its functionality. It is only the compound functionality that is slowed though - all of the fundamental components (such as the light pulse which is a key part of a light clock's mechanism) continue to operate at full speed throughout. The only reason we can't pin down whether a clock is stationary or not is that if it's moving and you treat it as the stationary clock, the clock that you move away from it and back might tick faster than it on one leg of its trip, but it will tick so much slower on the other leg that it will end up with exactly the same time difference recorded by the end as if the other clock was stationary. We understand the mechanism by which this happens and we should not be fooled by it, but it does mean that we can never pin down some important facts.

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?).

You can put down rival trails of "stationary" crumbs using different frames of reference to guide you, but all that will do is confirm that relativity allows you to use any one you like as any of them could be the one that's at rest.

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.

In the case of gravity wells, which is the more useful thought experiment for this, we are sidelining the entire problem of telling whether we're stationary or moving - we're simply looking at the other clock slowing mechanism while the other mechanism (depending on speed of travel) becomes an irrelevance. The clock taken deep into the gravity well and back out again (and it can be moved very slowly, so the relative speed of movement of the clocks remains irrelevant), any idea that this clock took a shortcut into the future (as with GR) is disproved by the lack of event-meshing failures in the real universe. That means that the clock must actually have run slow. The issue for you is different as you accept that the clock does run slow, but you want time to run slow with it, and that not only removes time as a control mechanism, but gives you nothing to slow the clock relative to.

You can certainly adjust the act of returning the clocks together by cheating, to use your argument, meaning by adjusting the act of returning the clocks to their start positions using visual assistance in regard to the relative positions of the clocks as you move them, and adjusting the return path visually until they are back together. Still, there is no evidence that when they are brought back together even using visual assistance, that they are back to their original positions in absolute space, is there?[/font]

With the gravity well case, we don't need to care if they're back to their original positions or not. If the whole system of gravity well and clocks is moving at 0.866c through space, it simply means that what we see happen is all running at half the rate of functionality it would if the system was stationary. In such a case (where the functionality is all slowed to half), we already have the clocks ticking at a rate which is very different from the absolute time that controls the rate at which light is moving through space there. Down in the well though, that light is moving more slowly, so the functionality of a clock there would still be slowed to half the rate of the rate of travel through space of the local light (which is not slowed at all by the speed of travel of the system through space, but which is slowed gravitationally).

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.

The real universe works mechanistically. A viable simulation also works mechanistically and can simulate the real universe. A bad model which cannot be simulated without cheating is also incapable of running a real universe. With the gravity well experiment, we don't need to care about location - the influence of speed of travel through space is the same for all parts of the system, slowing both clocks equally, so it is irrelevant. Think about simulating the gravity well experiment, and if you want to, you can do the whole thing with the system at rest and then do it again with it moving at any speed you like - the differences are of no consequence to the truth the simulation is testing. In the simulation, we lower a clock into a gravity well, then raise it back up next to the other clock (which it started next to). The lowered clock recorded less time appearing to pass. Now simulate the mechanism for that and see if you can get it to work without absolute time. The processor has a clock that keeps the action ticking at a fixed rate. That is absolute time for the simulation, so if you don't want absolute time to be involved, you have to write the simulation in such a way that that clock has no influence on events - you are banned from using it to coordinate events. The same applies to the real universe - that thing that controls the rate at which things happen is a hidden absolute time equivalent to the clock in the processor that beats out the action. How are you going to slow down time for the lowered clock compared with the clock at the top? How is it going to tick at any rate when you have no absolute time to govern it? The whole model immediately becomes disfunctional. Where's your mechanism? No one has any mechanism other than absolute time, and when they run simulations of their models that deny absolute time and resolutely avoid allowing any official timer to govern events, they actually have all the action being coordinated by the universal clock that governs the processor - the speed of that ticking determines the relative rates that all the different clocks in the simulation run at.

[Bogie_smiles]

Reply #221

Going back one round in our discussion:
You said:

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).

To that, I responded:

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.

To which you responded:

There are many theories about the cause of the slowing of clocks in a gravity well, but we needn't worry too much about which is right - all that matters is that either: (1) clocks run slow deeper down and time runs slower too, (2) clocks run slow there but time does not slow, or (3) clocks don't really run slow there but merely appear to while they're actually taking shortcuts into the future. The third option automatically generates event-meshing failures, so it is a fantasy. The first option also breaks because the clock has extra work to do due to the additional activity/stuff that's slowing its ticking, while the ticking only records the part of the action that doesn't include extra stuff that the clock is doing, so time is actually running faster than the clock suggests. (2) is the only viable answer.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, your response is without merit because:

#1  You wave off the generally accepted and physically repeatable scientific observations about the science of how a gravity well, and/or relative acceleration affects the rate that clocks measure and record the passing of time. Though they don't falsify the existence of absolute time, they provide an evidenced based argument for questioning absolute time.

#2  (And this just mentioned because part of my motivation to discuss the topic of absolute time is that I have my own views associated with it that I hoped to discuss: You disregard and do not respond to the premise I put forth regarding gravitational wave energy density influencing the rate that clocks at different depths in a gravity well will measure and record the passing of time.)

#3  Instead of referring to the generally accepted physics within the scientific community that describe the effect of relative motion on the rate that two identical clocks measure and record the passing of time in different environments, and in fact, science to which we have already agreed, you provide a new list of three different circumstances that you say really matter instead.

#4  Your choice from your own list, item #2, invokes the premise that you are proposing to prove, without actually showing any evidence to support it. On the other hand, I can site the experiments conducted with identical atomic clocks that are the basis for the agreement that has been reached by the scientific community.


Conclusion:  You are saying your position is true by your own authority.

Argument From Authority:

This is the flip side of the ad hominem; in this case, the argument is advanced because of those advancing it. But arguments from authority carry little weight: the history of human kind is consistent in one fact: the frequency of human error.

So please give me a response that supports the premise that there is absolute time, other than on your own authority.

[Bogie_smiles]

How about a poem about quantum gravity?
This is just for Saturday night fun
Never to be repeated, lol.

Quantum Gravity For Fun

For’get a’bout your curved space’time,
And so to New’ton’s mass times mass.
For Quan’tum grav’i’ty Di’vined,
Is found a’long a quan’tum path.

Like a sci’ence rev’o’lu’tion,
The sec’ret falls right in’to place.
Quan’tum grav’i’tys so’lu’tion,
Re’quires you have a lit’tle faith.

With Grav’i’ty waves all a’round,
Then Quan’tum grav’i’ty is nye.
Where wave os’cil’la’tions a’bound,
youll find it right there if you try.

See wave con’verg’enc’es of course,
Your in the right vi’cin’i’ty.
Ob’jects move toward the great’est source,
Of  wave en’er’gy den’si’ty.

Though its not what you were think’ing,
But now go to sleep hap’pi’ly.
No one knows what I’ve been drink’en,
But that is quan’tum grav’i’ty!

[David Cooper]

There are many theories about the cause of the slowing of clocks in a gravity well, but we needn't worry too much about which is right - all that matters is that either: (1) clocks run slow deeper down and time runs slower too, (2) clocks run slow there but time does not slow, or (3) clocks don't really run slow there but merely appear to while they're actually taking shortcuts into the future. The third option automatically generates event-meshing failures, so it is a fantasy. The first option also breaks because the clock has extra work to do due to the additional activity/stuff that's slowing its ticking, while the ticking only records the part of the action that doesn't include extra stuff that the clock is doing, so time is actually running faster than the clock suggests. (2) is the only viable answer.

#1  You wave off the generally accepted and physically repeatable scientific observations about the science of how a gravity well, and/or relative acceleration affects the rate that clocks measure and record the passing of time. Though they don't falsify the existence of absolute time, they provide an evidenced based argument for questioning absolute time.

Where do I do that? What I've said ties in precisely with the results of experiments. We can put one atomic clock on a high shelf and another on a low shelf, and we see the lower clock tick less often than the higher one in a fully predictable way. The things I've labelled as (1), (2) and (3) are different interpretations of the same facts. I have then pointed out the consequences of each interpretation, thereby showing two of them to be faulty.

Conclusion:  You are saying your position is true by your own authority.

It has nothing to do with my authority - it's driven solely by the diktats of logical reasoning. (3) produces event-meshing failures which contradict what we see in nature, so we can only accept (3) by rejecting logic - that destroys both of Einstein's theories of relativity in a single stroke for anyone who is fully rational. Your theory appears to be (1) though, and while (1) can also be shown to be wrong, it's harder for people to get their heads round why (and it's already been shown to be virtually impossible to get most people to recognise that (3) is wrong). This is something that all AGI systems will understand though, because if they are to apply reason consistently without contradiction, they will automatically invalidate (3) and (1) - it is mathematically required that they do so. Like I said - this has nothing to do with my authority, but is driven by maths (and reason, which is a fundamental part of maths).

#2  (And this just mentioned because part of my motivation to discuss the topic of absolute time is that I have my own views associated with it that I hoped to discuss: You disregard and do not respond to the premise I put forth regarding gravitational wave energy density influencing the rate that clocks at different depths in a gravity well will measure and record the passing of time.)

You have a theory which I doubt is correct, but I'm not going to rule it out - the strength of these gravitational waves, however small they may be, could correlate to the amount of slowing of functionality at any point in space and could therefore be the cause. It doesn't appear to me necessary that your theory assert that time slows down in addition to clocks slowing down, so even if you are wrong about time slowing, that doesn't break the rest of your model. You are simply asserting that time slows down to match the slowing of clocks, and that's unnecessary (in addition to being wrong) - you don't need it to do so.

Instead of referring to the generally accepted physics within the scientific community that describe the effect of relative motion on the rate that two identical clocks measure and record the passing of time in different environments, and in fact, science to which we have already agreed, you provide a new list of three different circumstances that you say really matter instead.

The generally accepted "physics" that you talk of is represented by (3). My list is of three interpretations of accepted facts, and your theory is represented by (1), while LET is represented by (2). The theory here that isn't in any way recognised by the mainstream is yours: (1), so do you want me to throw that out on the basis that the mainstream don't have any time for it?

Your choice from your own list, item #2, invokes the premise that you are proposing to prove, without actually showing any evidence to support it.

When you're dealing with three interpretations of something and you find faults in two of them that rule them out, that doesn't prove the surviving option - there may be other interpretations that could be added to the list. However, the options that are shown to be impossible due to faults can be ruled out. In your case, that doesn't appear to be a serious problem though as your model, so far as I can see, doesn't depend on there being no absolute time - you have merely asserted that there is no absolute time and have tied that to your model for no good reason other than that you can't detect it directly. It has to be logically inferred, and for the rest of your model to work, you need absolute time as a control mechanism. You may not be able to see that yet, but if you were to write a simulation of your model, I can guarantee that you won't be able to make it work without putting absolute time into it to coordinate the action.

On the other hand, I can site the experiments conducted with identical atomic clocks that are the basis for the agreement that has been reached by the scientific community.

Everything I said agrees with the exact same evidence.

So please give me a response that supports the premise that there is absolute time, other than on your own authority.

You've already been given that in reply #220.

[Bogie_smiles]

Where do I do that? What I've said ties in precisely with the results of experiments. We can put one atomic clock on a high shelf and another on a low shelf, and we see the lower clock tick less often than the higher one in a fully predictable way. The things I've labelled as (1), (2) and (3) are different interpretations of the same facts. I have then pointed out the consequences of each interpretation, thereby showing two of them to be faulty.

It has nothing to do with my authority - it's driven solely by the diktats of logical reasoning. (3) produces event-meshing failures which contradict what we see in nature, so we can only accept (3) by rejecting logic - that destroys both of Einstein's theories of relativity in a single stroke for anyone who is fully rational. Your theory appears to be (1) though, and while (1) can also be shown to be wrong, it's harder for people to get their heads round why (and it's already been shown to be virtually impossible to get most people to recognise that (3) is wrong). This is something that all AGI systems will understand though, because if they are to apply reason consistently without contradiction, they will automatically invalidate (3) and (1) - it is mathematically required that they do so. Like I said - this has nothing to do with my authority, but is driven by maths (and reason, which is a fundamental part of maths).

You have a theory which I doubt is correct, but I'm not going to rule it out - the strength of these gravitational waves, however small they may be, could correlate to the amount of slowing of functionality at any point in space and could therefore be the cause. It doesn't appear to me necessary that your theory assert that time slows down in addition to clocks slowing down, so even if you are wrong about time slowing, that doesn't break the rest of your model. You are simply asserting that time slows down to match the slowing of clocks, and that's unnecessary (in addition to being wrong) - you don't need it to do so.

The generally accepted "physics" that you talk of is represented by (3). My list is of three interpretations of accepted facts, and your theory is represented by (1), while LET is represented by (2). The theory here that isn't in any way recognised by the mainstream is yours: (1), so do you want me to throw that out on the basis that the mainstream don't have any time for it?

When you're dealing with three interpretations of something and you find faults in two of them that rule them out, that doesn't prove the surviving option - there may be other interpretations that could be added to the list. However, the options that are shown to be impossible due to faults can be ruled out. In your case, that doesn't appear to be a serious problem though as your model, so far as I can see, doesn't depend on there being no absolute time - you have merely asserted that there is no absolute time and have tied that to your model for no good reason other than that you can't detect it directly. It has to be logically inferred, and for the rest of your model to work, you need absolute time as a control mechanism. You may not be able to see that yet, but if you were to write a simulation of your model, I can guarantee that you won't be able to make it work without putting absolute time into it to coordinate the action.

Everything I said agrees with the exact same evidence.

You've already been given that in reply #220.

I was out of line in my layman level science enthusiasm to suggest that there is faulty logic behind the beliefs in absolute time and space. I’m sure you have had those views long enough to understand the playing field better than a novice like myself.

My insinuation that you were waving off the generally accepted observations, which I stated that we both agreed to, was to point out the fact there is no place in the known universe where a clock can tick at the absolute rate that you say either exists, or is a necessary given. Combine that with the fact that gravity is a prime factor in the actual rate that clocks tick off the passing of time everywhere in the universe, and I end up in the camp that maintains there is no absolute time or space. To me those concepts are intellectually unnecessary, and seem to point to the  establishment of a type of “clockwork” order to the universe./?

I just don’t wish to invoke what seems to be an artificial order on my concept of a universe that is as it should be, always has been, and could be no other way (to my layman science enthusiasts way of thinking). Infinite time, space, and energy are unalterable characteristics of the Infinite Spongy Universe model, which equates to my own appeal to authority, lol.

The process of coming to my own conclusions has caused me to inadvertently disregard those hundreds of years of history in regard to the concepts you and I are at odds on. There is plenty of history that addresses your chosen beliefs, and our differences are basic to our different beliefs. Perhaps they can be mutually written it off, as I am inclined to do, as being two different senses of reality, and two different sets of logic that get us to them.

On the other hand, it seems that when a person has made a conscious decision to join with those saying that there is absolute time and space, one would have to be well studied in the history of science. That history would logically include much work and thought along the lines of a mathematical framework where absolute time and space serve a necessary function.

[David Cooper]

All it takes to find out why absolute time is a necessary component of any viable model is to produce a simulation of your model, and all you have to simulate is the simple thought experiment in which you have two clocks running at different rates at different altitudes in a gravity well. If you could make one that works and fits all the facts without absolute time, you would be able to prove me wrong, but any such simulation will necessarily be dependent on an absolute time that must be smuggled into the model somewhere to coordinate the action. The real universe requires an equivalent mechanism for it to function correctly. Here we have another aspect of reality which many people deny on the basis that they can't directly detect it, just like with the fabric of space (which provides essential services upon which the action relies) - take it away and a model that supposedly doesn't need it no longer functions. With SR, this too is hidden in simulations by using one or more potential space fabrics while denying their vital role in controlling the action, and their very existence, but the simulation is using them no matter what the model makers claim. These hidden things, the space fabric and absolute time, both provide essential services, and if you write a simulation that removes those services which a model supposedly doesn't rely on, you find that it does rely on them - the model breaks without them. It never fails to surprise me that so many top-level physicists don't understand this, but they are very good at self delusion, ignoring the inclusion in their simulations of services which they are banned from using in their model, but it's a near-universal defect in people's thinking. They will not be able to fool AGI though.

[Bogie_smiles]

REPLY #226

All it takes to find out why absolute time is a necessary component of any viable model is to produce a simulation of your model, and all you have to simulate is the simple thought experiment in which you have two clocks running at different rates at different altitudes in a gravity well. If you could make one that works and fits all the facts without absolute time, you would be able to prove me wrong, …

OK, let’s walk through the process of producing such a simulation. I’d like to do it using my model, so I will go step by step, and you can oversee the process if you want.

First step: We have two clocks running at different rates because they are at different altitudes (or depths) in a gravity well.

… but any such simulation will necessarily be dependent on an absolute time that must be smuggled into the model somewhere to coordinate the action. The real universe requires an equivalent mechanism for it to function correctly.

Then, let’s keep our eye out for how it gets smuggled in as we go.

Here we have another aspect of reality which many people deny on the basis that they can't directly detect it, just like with the fabric of space (which provides essential services upon which the action relies) - take it away and a model that supposedly doesn't need it no longer functions. With SR, this too is hidden in simulations by using one or more potential space fabrics while denying their vital role in controlling the action, and their very existence, but the simulation is using them no matter what the model makers claim. These hidden things, the space fabric and absolute time, both provide essential services, and if you write a simulation that removes those services which a model supposedly doesn't rely on, you find that it does rely on them - the model breaks without them.

Then it is the object of the simulation exercise to see if that is true. As I present my version, using my model, let’s keep an eye out for how I replace those services without invoking absolute time and space. Let’s highlight where the model breaks down by not using absolute time and/or space.

To start, note that in the ISU model, the fabric of space is called the gravitational wave energy density (gwed) profile of space, and I will describe that in detail to show that there is a positive gwed value for every point in space according to the ISU definitions.

It never fails to surprise me that so many top-level physicists don't understand this, but they are very good at self delusion, ignoring the inclusion in their simulations of services which they are banned from using in their model, but it's a near-universal defect in people's thinking. They will not be able to fool AGI though.

That sounds a lot like the saying, “It isn’t nice to fool Mother Nature,” lol.

A question, does AGI stand for artificial general intelligence, or what?

Anyway, Ok, here we go … see my next post.

[David Cooper]

A question, does AGI stand for artificial general intelligence, or what?

The former (i.e. it does not stand for what).

Maybe if I describe a simulation first it will help you construct yours. Let's focus on the time issue first and not worry about absolute space - we should keep things simple and deal with one thing at a time. Imagine a space containing two locations called A and B, the former being at or near the top of a gravity well and the latter being deep in a gravity well. We can simulate the action in a computer by applying a theory about what slows clocks at B.

Your gravitational wave idea, if it can produce the right numbers, should do just as well as any other mechanism, though I have to wonder where these gravitational waves are going to come from. If you have a clock sitting on a static planet in deep space, the clock must be slowed by the planet's mass, but there's nothing in the planet putting out gravitational waves because none of it is moving. It would need to be creating energy out of nothing all the time to radiate off as gravitational waves, but black holes clearly don't do that - they only produce detectable waves when orbiting each other in the final stages before merger, and while they're doing that, any object further out which is orbiting the pair of black holes on a circular path will have its clock tick at a near-constant rate while the strength of gravitational waves passing through it changes radically. However, it doesn't matter here whether your theory is broken or not - all that matters is that you're somehow producing numbers that generate the right amount of slowing of clocks, so if that needs a constant supply of gravitational waves passing through a clock to slow it, you can have that.

Let's use two computers for two simulations of this space with locations A and B at different altitudes in a gravity well. C1 (computer 1) will put a clock at location A, while C2 (computer 2) will put a clock at location B. The clocks can be described as being located at 1A and 2B. Both computers simulate the gravitational waves throughout the space. C1 (computer 1) simulates the ticking of the clock at 1A and allows the gravitational waves at A to slow its ticking a little. C2 (computer 2) simulates the ticking of the clock at 2A and allows the gravitational waves at B to slow its ticking - this slowing is more severe because there are more or stronger gravitational waves present at B. But what are the clocks being slowed relative to? They're being slowed relative to the clock of the simulation - the computers are timers, providing an absolute time to coordinate the action.

Why have I used two computers rather than one? Well, what happens if they have different speeds of processor? If C2 has a faster chip in it than C1, the clock deep in the gravity well at 2B might be ticking at a faster rate than the clock at 1A. The absolute time provided by the computers has a role which should not be ignored.

If we do everything on a single computer instead, we can have two clocks in the same simulation, one at A and the other at B, and now the clock at B will always run slower than the one at A. If we do this on C1 and C2 at the same time, both clocks will run faster on machine C2 than their equivalents on C1, but the relative ticking rates of the clocks at A and B will be the same for each simulation. Here's the important thing though: while we look at the two simulations being run, we can say with certainty that the clock at 1A is running more slowly than the clock at 2A, and we can also say that the clock at 1A is not recording all the time that is actually passing for it because we know that the simulation is running on a slower processor which simply takes longer to run the action. The rate at which time passes is not the rate shown by the clock being simulated. If we have two space fabrics hosting the action for real, but one of those fabrics is more responsive than the other (it can run the action faster), then that responsive fabric will allow clocks to tick faster than they do in a less-responsive space fabric, but time isn't running more slowly for the less-responsive fabric - it is simply a slower "processor" that takes longer to run the action. For it to be possible for one space fabric to be less responsive than another, there needs to be a mechanism that allows one to do more in a given length of (absolute) time. If we only have one space fabric, we still have that absolute time - it governs the default rate at which all parts of the space fabric run the action. If you then shove a whole lot of gravitational waves (or substitute some rival mechanism here) and the action slows down, you may then be causing the local fabric to run the action more slowly, but it's still governed by the default rate of action set by absolute time. Alternatively though, the fabric may not be slowed at all, but the functionality of the clock may be more directly slowed by its interactions with gravitational waves, in which case we have the fabric's clock ticking at full speed while the clock runs slow. Either way, we still have absolute time ticking faster than the clock.

What I'm trying to do here is show you how to think about mechanisms and whether you're using hidden ones that you don't notice are necessary to coordinate the action. If we want to get rid of absolute time from the above, then where is the control mechanism to make the clock at B run slower than the clock at A? Yes, we have more gravitational waves at B (in your model), but what are they slowing clock B relative to? Are they linked to the clock A, monitoring the action there and making sure that they don't go as fast? No - the control system is local to B and doesn't need to monitor clocks elsewhere because there is a local time. The fabric is trying to run the action at full speed by absolute time. If the fabric itself is slowed by gravitational waves, then it is taking more absolute time to run each action. Alternatively, if the fabric isn't slowed but the clock is directly slowed by gravitational waves, then the clock is taking more absolute time to run each tick. Time does not slow along with the clock - time is independent of any such slowing.

Let's go back to computers to see slowing in action. We can run a program which takes a long time to carry out a task. If we disable the interrupts, the processor will run at full speed and get the action done in a certain length of time. If we enable interrupts and attach some device like a keyboard that keeps triggering them, every time we press a key we will slow the action and make the computer take longer to carry out the  task. That task might be to simulate a clock. The computer may be using the processor's speed (governed by a hidden clock) to change the time of a displayed virtual clock which keeps perfect time with our real clocks while the interrupts are disabled, or indeed if they are enabled but we aren't pressing any keys on the keyboard. If we press a key and hold it down though, we can steal processor time away from the simulated clock, so it will run slow. The gravitational waves running through the space fabric could act like these interrupts, taking up some of the time that it would otherwise be able to use to run the clock sitting at that location. The absolute time governing the amount of work that the fabric does in this case is unslowed, but the clock sitting in that space runs slow. Absolute time and the clock have decoupled because of the gravitational waves depriving the clock of "processing time" - the fabric is doing more work in a given amount of absolute time and it is making the clock tick more slowly as a result.

That was the case with the gravitational waves (or interrupts) taking up "processing time", but the alternative to that is to have the fabric run at full speed and the gravitational waves directly slow the clock. In this case, it's clear that absolute time is running faster than the clock though because the fabric is still functioning at full speed while the clock is running slow.

Can we eliminate the absolute time that is serving as a key part of the mechanism to coordinate the action? No. The clock that ultimately governs a processor is really the absolute time of the space holding the computer, although the machine will be running slower than that due to us being in a gravity well. But the simulation shouldn't be using our time at all, so we need to eliminate it. We are not allowed to use any of our clocks to run the simulation, but if we remove them, the simulation doesn't function and nothing happens, so we're stuck. How can we have the simulation run without using time to govern the simulation? The simulation would need to simulate time, and then that time would be used to run the simulation, but we can't run the simulation in the first place to get that simulated time running, so the action never starts. In reality, we can't run a simulation without using real time to govern it, although we can simulate an absolute time within a simulation which runs at a different rate from the real absolute time. Having done that, we can pretend that the simulated absolute time is the real one and that our clocks and the real absolute time (whose actual rate we can't determine) are running fast or slow relative to the simulated absolute time, so the simulated absolute time can be treated as if it is the real governing time of all the action. When we slow the action for the clock at B, we're doing so relative to the simulated absolute time. Without that simulated absolute time, what are we slowing the clock at B relative to? The clock at A? What's governing the tick rate of the clock at A if there's no simulated absolute time? How much processor time should we give to running the two clocks? How can we give them amounts of time without having an absolute time to allocate parts of to them? If you systematically eliminate all influence of absolute time from the simulation, it breaks - there's no way to force clocks at A and B to tick at any specific relative rate unless one governs the other, and ultimately there will need to be one clock somewhere that governs all the others to maintain relative rates.

With the real universe it's directly equivalent - clock B is being systematically run slower than clock A, so which clock is governing which? If you're just allowing the speed of functionality of a space fabric (and woe betide you if you don't have one) to run slower when there are more gravitational waves present, then what's it being slowed relative to? There's an undeclared time governing events there, and it's ticking faster than clock B.

[Bogie_smiles]

I must say that you out did yourself with that post. Not only will it take some time and effort to respond, my version of a simulation will differ from the ideas for a simulation that you have presented. Let me post some of my own ideas about the fabric of space and time, present some concepts related to my model, and talk about how I would proceed with a layman science enthusiasts version of a simulation.

To help each of us understand the rigor behind each other's posts, I have pointed out that I have no scientific credentials to speak of, other than years of self-learning. As a result, my views, including the ISU model, have evolved from my science forum activity and individual research over the years. Do you want to brief me on your credentials as they relate to your credibility in regard to scientific issues?

Maybe if I describe a simulation first it will help you construct yours. Let's focus on the time issue first and not worry about absolute space - we should keep things simple and deal with one thing at a time.

Your are being practical, and the idea of expressing my views of cosmology in a simulation that you will look at and consider would be my motivation for investing the time. But I’m reminded of our series of posts, and feel I should refer back to my reply #224, where I posted:

I just don’t wish to invoke what seems to be an artificial order on my concept of a universe that is as it should be, always has been, and could be no other way (to my layman science enthusiasts way of thinking). Infinite time, space, and energy are unalterable characteristics of the Infinite Spongy Universe model, which equates to my own appeal to authority, lol.

The process of coming to my own conclusions has caused me to inadvertently disregard those hundreds of years of history in regard to the concepts you and I are at odds on. There is plenty of history that addresses your chosen beliefs, and our differences are basic to our different beliefs. Perhaps they can be mutually written it off, as I am inclined to do, as being two different senses of reality, and two different sets of logic that get us to them.

My motivation to attempt a simulation of my ideas included the idea that by doing that, it would let you show how it would substantiate your claim that the absolutes would have to creep into it in order to keep the simulation from breaking down.

But I can’t forget that it seemed appropriate that I write off our differences as being incompatible and irreconcilable, based on our individual deep seated beliefs, acquired over time, with much contemplation and individual rigor.

When reading the details of reply #227, it wouldn’t surprise me if you have done your own simulations, and that experience would logically carry over into the process of addressing my version of a simulation. So before I dig into the idea of imagining a space containing two locations called A and B within a gravity well (which I have done), and without an actual computer program to assist the simulation, I would have my own approach.

I would describe the ISU version of what you would call the fabric of space, the nature of time, and try to express why I consider the three infinites, space, time, and energy as imperatives. The simulation of my model would simply invoke those infinities as givens; as a starting point that puts aside the logical problems of infinite regress, creeping entropy, finding an explanation for the existence of the universe, dealing with first cause, etc. My “givens” cannot be proven, and aren’t self evident, but my model is derived from them as if they were axiomatic.

That thinking leads me to look back at reply #224, where “incompatible and irreconcilable” were the words that come to mind.

That said, I haven’t given up the idea of knocking heads, and I often consider my ideas to be a compulsion, so I will keep being compulsive whether I work up my own simulation or not, lol. On that note, I’ll do my best to write more in regard to a simulation, on a timely basis, and if you keep interest, we will have some in-depth discussion that will tackle our seemingly incompatible ideas.

[David Cooper]

Do you want to brief me on your credentials as they relate to your credibility in regard to scientific issues?

Like you, I have gained my understanding of physics as an outsider who did not go through the sausage grinder to be force-fed the standard dogma. That said though, I just assumed that the establishment would have most things right, and the only thing that bothered me was the contradictions that I saw in Einstein's theories of relativity. I investigated those in order to see how the contradictions are handled, assuming that they had an answer to this issue, but I found that they are simply swept under the carpet and ignored by most people. However, the top physicists congregate around a model that does manage to eliminate the contradictions, although at the expense of eliminating real time and losing all possible role for causality. My nearest thing to relevant qualifications are in applying logic, but even there I'm self taught - I studied the field as a child (with a little bit of direction from a mathematician-logician uncle, a younger brother of mathematician Ian Porteous). I ended up taking a path into linguistics though, avoiding university because I had already studied the field from childhood and was far ahead of the game with my work on generative semantics where I had wrapped up a field which other people had abandoned as an impossible task. For most of the last twenty years I've been working on designing and building an AGI system, and that will stand as the best possible kind of qualifications when it's finished, but until it's been demonstrated in public, it counts for nothing. (I'm currently rebuilding a key part of it which will make it inordinately more flexible and powerful, but if you happen to be visiting Aberdeen in the new year, send me a PM and we can meet up - I'll show you a demo of natural language programming that proves it isn't mere vapourware. That same invitation will be open to Chris - I'd be happy for TNS to get a look at this before Click does, but it will look better on TV.)

My motivation to attempt a simulation of my ideas included the idea that by doing that, it would let you show how it would substantiate your claim that the absolutes would have to creep into it in order to keep the simulation from breaking down.

If you need any help designing or building a simulation for it, just ask - it should be a trivially small program as it doesn't have a lot to do.

I would describe the ISU version of what you would call the fabric of space, the nature of time, and try to express why I consider the three infinites, space, time, and energy as imperatives. The simulation of my model would simply invoke those infinities as givens; as a starting point that puts aside the logical problems of infinite regress, creeping entropy, finding an explanation for the existence of the universe, dealing with first cause, etc. My “givens” cannot be proven, and aren’t self evident, but my model is derived from them as if they were axiomatic.

Those three infinites are fine with me - they don't interfere with the thing we want to test.

[Bogie_smiles]

Like you, I have gained my understanding of physics as an outsider who did not go through the sausage grinder to be force-fed the standard dogma. That said though, I just assumed that the establishment would have most things right, and the only thing that bothered me was the contradictions that I saw in Einstein's theories of relativity. I investigated those in order to see how the contradictions are handled, assuming that they had an answer to this issue, but I found that they are simply swept under the carpet and ignored by most people. However, the top physicists congregate around a model that does manage to eliminate the contradictions, although at the expense of eliminating real time and losing all possible role for causality. My nearest thing to relevant qualifications are in applying logic, but even there I'm self taught - I studied the field as a child (with a little bit of direction from a mathematician-logician uncle, a younger brother of mathematician Ian Porteous). I ended up taking a path into linguistics though, avoiding university because I had already studied the field from childhood and was far ahead of the game with my work on generative semantics where I had wrapped up a field which other people had abandoned as an impossible task. For most of the last twenty years I've been working on designing and building an AGI system, and that will stand as the best possible kind of qualifications when it's finished, but until it's been demonstrated in public, it counts for nothing. (I'm currently rebuilding a key part of it which will make it inordinately more flexible and powerful, but if you happen to be visiting Aberdeen in the new year, send me a PM and we can meet up - I'll show you a demo of natural language programming that proves it isn't mere vapourware. That same invitation will be open to Chris - I'd be happy for TNS to get a look at this before Click does, but it will look better on TV.)

Thank you for the interesting bio. I take it you are programming/coding your AGI system on your own? I can see hundreds of hours being invested in something like that, having had the experience writing a stock market “predictive” model in Excel, years ago. It contained and updated daily all the stock price history of the individual S&P 500 stocks, and tracked each stock relative to its 25, 50, and 200 day moving averages. It produced some pretty, multiple color charts, but couldn’t compete with the professional versions, with essentially free data, that were coming on line. Those were the days.

If you need any help designing or building a simulation for it, just ask - it should be a trivially small program as it doesn't have a lot to do.

Very kind offer. I think my model is aimed at being more descriptive than it is simulative, but let’s see how our discussion plays out.

Those three infinites are fine with me - they don't interfere with the thing we want to test.

Good point. I’ll give you some of my thinking about the gravity well. It would seem appropriate to use the inverse square law as it applies to gravity waves in the well. According to my model, gravity waves in the well are emitted by the massive object at the bottom of the well, say the Sun. As the emitted gravity waves ascend the well, the energy they carry would be subject to the inverse square law.

The Gravity Well Scenario

We could depict the gravity well in terms of a tall ladder, and the ladder might be standing upright on the surface of the Sun. The first rung is at the same height on the ladder as the distance from the Sun to the Earth, because that is approximately one astronomical unit, for talking purposes.

A clock on the bottom rung equates to it being one AU from the surface of the Sun. This set-up will show only tiny differences on clock measurements from rung to rung, but the differences between a clock on the first rung, and on other higher rungs can be enlarged by moving up the ladder.

Because of the invariant laws of nature that are in play, the clock on the top rung will run faster than the clock deep in the well on the bottom rung of the ladder.

To put that in terms of a set of twins, a twin on the top rung will appear to age faster than a twin on the bottom rung, and we can think of the twin on the bottom rung as being in the vicinity of the Earth.

The operative effect is that there is a difference in the acceleration caused by the gravitational force being experienced on the clocks from the Sun’s mass, depending on their position on the ladder.





Let’s go to a Hyper-physics page on the Inverse Square Law

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/isq.html#isqe

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_01_09_17_8_01_40.gif


The bottom of the gravity well is at the center of the Sun. The diagram indicates it as the center of the Earth, but we are changing it to the Sun so we can be talking in Astronomical Units as we go up the ladder. The distance from the center of the Sun, to the center of the Earth then, corresponds with r sub E in the diagram, and to the position of the first rung on the ladder.

A gravity wave has gravitational intensity or wave energy density, (according to the ISU concept that all massive objects emit and absorb gravitational waves). The wave energy is emitted by the Sun, and travels up the ladder. The intensity value of g in a gravitational wave decreases as the distance increases, and at the first rung of the ladder, is A in the diagram.



The well shaft has the same dimensions as square A all the way up, no matter how many AU rungs we add. The inverse square law says that the intensity of the portion of the g wave decreases, such that as we double the value of r, i.e., go up one rung, from the first rung to the second rung, the area of the curved plane wave increases by the square of the distance. By taking that step to the second rung, the distance just went from 1r to 2r, so the area of the curved plane wave as shown in the diagram is now 4A. However, the portion of that 4A wave that is within the shaft in our gravity well remains equal to one A. The intensity declines by the inverse square of the increase in the distance, the energy of the wave remains g, so the energy of a wave ascending our gravity well from rung one to rung two is g/4, so it equals 1/4 A at the second rung in our well.


As we go up one more rung, we increase the radius to 3r, the area of the original curved plane wave increases to the square of 3, so the area of the curved plane wave is 9A, and the portion of the wave within our shaft is still one A, and since the energy of the wave remains g, the energy in the wave front as it goes up our well to the third rung is g/9, so it equals 1/9 A.

Did it get all of that right?

How do I relate the rate that the clock ticks, to the local gravitational wave energy density?

As the waves ascend the well, the intensity has decreased by a factor of 9 at rung three vs rung one, and so I think we can say that the clock rate has increased by some factor relative to the wave energy density difference, meaning that the twin on rung three will age faster relative to the rate he aged at rung one. Note that no time has passed, we have simply quantified the value of the gravitational wave energy density at different places up the ladder as a result of the different level of gravitational wave energy density.

Where you are on the ladder governs the rate that you age.
https://www.quora.com/Does-time-really-move-slower-in-outer-space-And-how
Don't be fooled by the link's title, Earth's gravity slows clocks, but the Sun's gravity is greater, and so your position in space relative to the Sun and the Earth, could make a clock in space tick slower in space than on Earth.


Here is the equation from of the above link:
Gravitational time dilation implies that a clock in the gravitational field of a spherically symmetric mass 𝑀, at distance 𝑅
from the center, will be ticking at the square root √ of 1−𝐺𝑀𝑐^2𝑅 times slower,
Where G=Newton’s constant G=6.674×10⁻¹¹ N·kg^–2·m²
is Newton's constant of gravity and 𝑐 is the speed of light (Its exact value is 299,792,458 metres per second.) So if we just take the Earth's gravity into consideration, on the surface
(𝑅≃6370 km)
clocks would be ticking about 0.00000000035 times slower than in "outer space", i.e., far from the Earth.

However, if that clock is in the solar system, its distance from the Sun also matters! On the surface of the Earth, the contribution from the Sun's gravity means that clocks are ticking about 0.00000000494 times slower than in "outer space", far from the Earth and the Sun. So the Sun actually slows clocks down more than ten times as much as the Earth, relative to clocks in deep space. At Venus, a spacecraft's clock would be ticking 0.00000000686 times slower than in "deep space", or about 0.00000000192 times slower than in the vicinity of the Earth.

At average gravity on Earth (conventionally, g = 9.80665 m/s2), a kilogram mass exerts a force of about 9.8 newtons. An average-sized apple exerts about one newton of force, which we measure as the apple's weight.[3]1 N = 0.102 kg × 9.80665 m/s2    (0.102 kg = 102 g)The weight of an average adult exerts a force of about 608 N.608 N = 62 kg × 9.80665 m/s2 (where 62 kg is the world average adult mass)[4]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit

Here is an article from space.com yesterday, that gives us a good perspective on astronomical units (AU) as they describe finding the most distant object so far, found orbiting the sun:

https://www.space.com/42755-farout-farthest-solar-system-object-discovery.htmlhttps://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_18_12_18_2_46_03.jpeg

[David Cooper]

I take it you are programming/coding your AGI system on your own? I can see hundreds of hours being invested in something like that...

Completely alone. It's hard to add it all up, but I must have put at least forty thousand hours into this (and possibly twice that), though most of that was on linguistics (studying the structures of fifty languages and learning many of them to various levels of competence).

Did it get all of that right?

It sounds right.

How do I relate the rate that the clock ticks, to the local gravitational wave energy density?

Not with the formula you supplied further down.

Gravitational time dilation implies that a clock in the gravitational field of a spherically symmetric mass 𝑀, at distance 𝑅
from the center, will be ticking at the square root √ of 1−𝐺𝑀𝑐^2𝑅 times slower,
Where G=Newton’s constant G=6.674×10⁻¹¹ N·kg^–2·m²
is Newton's constant of gravity and 𝑐 is the speed of light (Its exact value is 299,792,458 metres per second.) So if we just take the Earth's gravity into consideration, on the surface
(𝑅≃6370 km)
clocks would be ticking about 0.00000000035 times slower than in "outer space", i.e., far from the Earth.

I don't like the wording "0.00000000035 times slower". I think that number should be subtracted from 1, then the resulting number n should be used to say that a clock sitting on the surface of the Earth is ticking n times as fast as a theoretical clock completely out of a gravity well, which is almost the same speed - it is hardly slowed at all.

Let me check the numbers though. Mass of Earth = 5.972 × 10^24 (kg), G=6.674×10^−11, radius of Earth = 6,371 (km). Wikipedia gives root(1-((2GM)/(rc^2))) for this, and it says:-

"To illustrate then, without accounting for the effects of rotation, proximity to Earth's gravitational well will cause a clock on the planet's surface to accumulate around 0.0219 fewer seconds over a period of one year than would a distant observer's clock."

So, we have root(1-((2 x 6.674x10^-11 x 5.972x10^24)/(6371 x 299792458^2))

I make that root(1-(7.971x10^14/5.726x10^20))

and that simplifies to 0.99999993039, or to 0.999999999303923 if the radius is meant to use metres rather than km - Wikipedia doesn't say. There are 31556736 seconds in a year, and if I subtract 0.0219 seconds from that and then divide by 31556736, I get 0.9999999993, so that confirms that r should be measured in metres and not km.

So, a clock in the lab here ticks 0.9999999993 times for every tick of a theoretical clock completely outside of a gravity well (and stationary).

[The figure you took from Quora of 0.00000000035 appears to include an error somewhere, but it's exactly half the 0.0000000007 figure that we get by taking 0.9999999993 away from 1. Let's crunch the formula from the post at Quora just to see what it actually gives us: root(1-(GM/c^2*r)) --> 0.999999999395981. Not a billion miles off, but quite different - probably an error in the equation, so it would be best to avoid using it.]

We should calculate all our numbers using root(1-((2GM)/(rc^2))) then. It's worth investing in a calculator with multiple memories so that you can store 2G in one and c^2 in another, as well as temporarily storing M and r values to make it easier to use them when sticking them into the equation.

[Halc]

So, a clock in the lab here ticks 0.9999999993 times for every tick of a theoretical clock completely outside of a gravity well (and stationary).

Completely outside Earth's well.  Earth is a very small fish in a huge pond.  That value is not 'completely outside of a gravity well'.  You lost track of the condition upon which the value was computed, which was "Considering only Earth's gravity".
Bogie got at least one more fish included:

However, if that clock is in the solar system, its distance from the Sun also matters! On the surface of the Earth, the contribution from the Sun's gravity means that clocks are ticking about 0.00000000494 times slower than in "outer space", far from the Earth and the Sun. So the Sun actually slows clocks down more than ten times as much as the Earth, relative to clocks in deep space.

Removing just one more object is still not 'deep space'.  Just like the sun as 10x the dilation effect here as does nearby Earth, the sun's effect is dwarfed by the additional mass of what you're labeling 'deep space'.  There is no such thing because it really is impossible to get anywhere close to being out of that well, even between galactic superclusters.
I point this out since you seem to be attempting to compute what the absolute dilation factor of local clocks is, and you're considering only some of the least significant components to that answer.

[Bogie_smiles]

Welcome in, Halc. Stay tuned. David and I are working out a couple of imperatives in regard to our individual beliefs, and I hope as and when we do that, that it will be followed by more detailed simulations on a grand scale. I have mentioned the infinities of space, time, and energy, and David has indicated that the infinities don't make him uncomfortable, so we can do the first round simulation independent of the infinities.

[David Cooper]

So, a clock in the lab here ticks 0.9999999993 times for every tick of a theoretical clock completely outside of a gravity well (and stationary).

Completely outside Earth's well.  Earth is a very small fish in a huge pond.  That value is not 'completely outside of a gravity well'.  You lost track of the condition upon which the value was computed, which was "Considering only Earth's gravity".

I was obviously leaving out all the extra slowing caused by the Earth being inside other gravity wells. Let's check the slowing for some of those:-

Mass of sun = 1.989 × 10^30 kg. Distance to sun = 150 million km. So, root(1-((2 x 6.674×10^−11 x 1.989x10^30)/(1.5x10^11 x 299792458^2))) gives us 0.9999999902 for our place in the sun's gravity well.

Mass of our galaxy estimated at 960 billion times mass of sun. Distance to galactic centre = 1x10^18m. So, root(1-((2 x 6.674×10^−11 x 1.90944x10^42)/(1x10^18 x 299792458^2))) gives us 0.9985810763 for our place in the galaxy's gravity well.

Multiplying our three results together (Earth, sun and galaxy) should give the total of that slowing: 0.9985810658, and that's hardly any different from the galaxy-induced slowing on its own.

Every other galaxy will add more slowing, so it would certainly be worth calculating the impact of M31 on us, and then a distant galaxy (with the insignificant result of that then multiplied by itself a millions or billion times):-

Let's just assume the same mass for M31 as our own galaxy to save Google the effort, and we'll call the distance two million lightyears = 9.461e+15 x 2,000,000: root(1-((2 x 6.674×10^−11 x 1.90944x10^42)/(1x10^18 x 299792458^2))), so that's 0.9999999251 - also a stronger effect on us than the sun's gravity well.

I'll pick a relatively close distance for a distant galaxy just to get some sort of idea of the strength of the effect over distance, so a billion lightyears away and with the same mass as our galaxy gives us 0.99999999985013, but a million galaxies of that size at that distance converts that into 0.99985014. This suggests that the total slowing from all other galaxies in the universe might cause something in the region of as much slowing here as our own galaxy does, but more importantly, that extra slowing will apply all through the deepest, emptiest parts of space. Even so, we are still only talking about a clock in deep space ticking slower than a theoretical clock completely outside of a gravity well in such a way as to fail to record perhaps 1/1000 of the time that has actually passed, which is one second missed for every 15 minutes of time. Of course, my numbers are based on a wild guess about galaxy distribution and distances - there may be emptier parts of space where you can reduce the effect, and the effect may be stronger here than my numbers suggest, but they shouldn't be many magnitudes out.

Removing just one more object is still not 'deep space'.  Just like the sun as 10x the dilation effect here as does nearby Earth, the sun's effect is dwarfed by the additional mass of what you're labeling 'deep space'.  There is no such thing because it really is impossible to get anywhere close to being out of that well, even between galactic superclusters.

The important thing here is to get some kind of feel for how much a clock in deep space is slowed, and it appears to be a small fraction slower than a theoretical clock outside of a gravity well, somewhere in the region one tick in a thousand being missed. Even one in a hundredth would be a small amount slower than the ideal clock.

I point this out since you seem to be attempting to compute what the absolute dilation factor of local clocks is, and you're considering only some of the least significant components to that answer.

For the simulation we were discussing, we can assume an empty universe with the exception of a single planet. However, there would be no harm in throwing a few billion galaxies into the ring to provide more slowing while we keep our planet in a vast, empty zone.

[Bogie_smiles]

Reply #235


There are a few of things about the simulation that we could discuss, to see if there is agreement on them before we use them.


One is invoking the inverse square law to explain the energy density at various rungs of the ladder as the g wave ascends, as is depicted in the Inverse Square diagram. Is it agreeable that we use the inverse square law to quantify the decline in intensity of the gravitational force as we go up the ladder?


Also, note that I am equating the change in intensity of g with the change in relative energy density of the wave as the radius increases. That means that at each regularly spaced rung, the energy density will change predictably.


I’ll repost the link and diagram for convenience:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/isq.html#isqe


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_01_09_17_8_01_40.gif


Also, in doing the simulation, we agreed we have to be watching for where the absolutes creep in. The equations used in the calculations when we apply the inverse square law include various SI units of measure, for mass, distance, time, etc. The use of SI units is one place where we should be careful about not letting absolutes creep in. It is hard to communicate without them, but standard units of measure are tied to invariant values and strictly defined conditions in how they are established, but does that mean they are tied to absolutes of nature?


We will be using them when we do the calculations in order to help quantify the values of the gravitational wave energy at various rungs of the ladder, so can we stipulate that their use should not be construed as some absolutes being invoked?

[Bogie_smiles]

Reply #236

A few paragraphs to introduce my thinking about what we will be simulating. Halc’s point, one that doesn’t evaded David Cooper’s thinking or mine, is that the gravity wells in the real world surround every massive object in all directions, so a simulation of one gravity well in one direction using a ladder analogy is quite simplistic and for discussion purposes, but is only a slice of the real world.

The Gravitational Wave Energy Density Profile of Space

In the ISU model, instead of the fabric of spacetime, there is what is called the gravitational wave energy density profile of space. Conceptually, each point in space contains gravitational wave energy being carried there by all of the gravitational waves arriving at that point. Therefore, each point in space has a net gravitational wave energy density value, consisting of the energy being carried by all of the gravitational waves arriving at that point, form all directions (each directional vector, many ladders, lol). Since the energy nets out directionally, the energy value at each point in space has a directional imbalance which “points” toward the net highest source of inflowing waves from all directions. (In my suggested approach to this first simulation, the ladder points in one such direction, toward the center of gravity of the Sun, from any rung on the ladder. Details about the center of gravity, the point source of the directional forces, etc., can be worked out later).


According to the ISU model, The Sun, and all massive objects, are composed of particles (more appropriately called wave-particles because in the ISU, particles with mass are composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments, but that is not yet a factor that affects the simulation).

Being composed of wave energy means that they “contain” an amount of wave energy relative to their respective mass, and they absorb and emit wave energy and tend to maintain their mass, their relative position and motion. (The g wave front rising in our gravity well is an example of a directionally out flowing gravitational wave energy component of the mass of the Sun that is ascending the ladder in our gravity well.)

[Bogie_smiles]

Apologies for not being familiar with this ISU model, but you seem to be mixing gravitational waves with gravity.  The sun for instance puts out very little in the way of gravitational waves (The moon possibly does more), so your direction pointer is not going to point to the sun.  Perhaps ISU uses the term 'gravitational wave' to mean something else, in which case I wonder what it calls what everybody else calls 'gravitational waves'?  The latter carries energy, probably in quanta, and at the speed of light.  The gravity waves generated by Earth can be expressed as about 200 watts, enough to power a few light bulbs.

Different models. In GR, the presence of the sun curves spacetime; the curvature of spacetime represents a huge energy potential. In the ISU model, I think of that potential in terms of the energy it would take to tell objects how to move relative to that potential. I find that energy in the spherically out flowing gravitational waves.


How to you explain mechanically, how mass curves spacetime?


In the ISU for example, a directional imbalance between the net inflow and out flow of gravitational wave energy causes relative motion because a wave-particle or object will move in the direction of the net highest gravitational wave energy source. For the simulation, that direction is toward the center of gravity of the Sun. (Obviously, as David Cooper pointed out, our simulation disregards a lot of reality, lol.)

[David Cooper]

My calculation worked on a different tack.  Sure, the local density of matter here is larger than average.  There's a galaxy here.  But at some scale, that density is relatively homogeneous.  There is this much matter in a region of radius 0.95 BLY to 1.05 BLY, and its radius is 1 BLY, and so you can compute the gravity impact X of that shell of material.  The next shell has more mass (by R²) but less gravity (by 1/R²) so that shell should have the same gravitational well as the former.  They're all the same, so you need to keep adding them forever, even the shells beyond the event horizon.  (I say adding because I'm adding negative gravitational potential, not multiplying dilations are you are doing).

I can see now that there could be a lot more slowing than I suggested. If you keep adding them forever (or I keep multiplying forever), then we'll end up with all clocks stopped completely, so the universe wouldn't behave in the way that it clearly does. Material that's out of sight and which will never become visible to us due to the expansion of space between us is presumably unable to act on us gravitationally either, so there should be a finite limit to the slowing even if there's an infinite amount of stuff out there.

(This slowing, when applied to a light clock, reveals a slowing of the speed of light, so whatever our fastest ticking clock does in the way of running slow, that directly reflects the maximum speed of light in the universe, and it will be slower than c.)

It gets more complicated with big distances because relativistic effects come into play.  Things get more compressed with distance, so the shells mass starts going up with distance, and I'm not sure if that increases our calculation that seemed to be an infinite series of constants adding up to infinite negative potential.  I've heard that said total potential exactly cancels the positive potential of all mass and energy everywhere, so that puts a limit on my infinite series.

Are you sure it's because of relativistic effects? Is it not more dense further away because we're looking back in time at less expanded parts of space? Whatever the case, we run out of visible galaxies and end up seeing the big bang (reduced to microwaves).

The important thing here is to get some kind of feel for how much a clock in deep space is slowed, and it appears to be a small fraction slower than a theoretical clock outside of a gravity well, somewhere in the region one tick in a thousand being missed. Even one in a hundredth would be a small amount slower than the ideal clock.

I got a lot more than that.  Is there a flaw in my reasoning?  Not exactly claiming authority here.  I just worked that out from some limited assumptions.

I think your approach is right - each band out to 13.8 billion lightyears should be taken into account, each having more impact than the one before it due to that extra density. It's a matter of doing lots of googling to find out the distribution of matter at different distances and crunching the numbers. I don't have time to go into that at the moment, but I'll put it on the to-do list.

[David Cooper]

One is invoking the inverse square law to explain the energy density at various rungs of the ladder as the g wave ascends, as is depicted in the Inverse Square diagram. Is it agreeable that we use the inverse square law to quantify the decline in intensity of the gravitational force as we go up the ladder?

It's approximately right, but there's a complicating factor which was discovered with the Mercury anomaly and which becomes more significant the deeper you go into a gravity well. I haven't explored this in any detail as most of the physics I've explored relates to special relativity. The simulation I've suggested we make doesn't need to be precise though - it's sufficient for it to have clocks ticking at different heights in a gravity well without needing to care about putting figures to the depth, because all we need to do is compare clock A with clock B while clock B is slowed with whatever energy density you declare to be present there.

Also, in doing the simulation, we agreed we have to be watching for where the absolutes creep in. The equations used in the calculations when we apply the inverse square law include various SI units of measure, for mass, distance, time, etc. The use of SI units is one place where we should be careful about not letting absolutes creep in. It is hard to communicate without them, but standard units of measure are tied to invariant values and strictly defined conditions in how they are established, but does that mean they are tied to absolutes of nature?

You have to use some units, and established standards are as good as any because you can convert to any alternative units just by multiplying by a conversion factor.

We will be using them when we do the calculations in order to help quantify the values of the gravitational wave energy at various rungs of the ladder, so can we stipulate that their use should not be construed as some absolutes being invoked?

Just use any values you like and if they invoke any absolutes that aren't supposed to exist in the model, that will become clear at some point.

How to you explain mechanically, how mass curves spacetime?

And if everything's down in a gravity well, what are the highest parts lower than?