[jimbobghost]

David,

it's refreshing to read a post of scientific value, in a forum dedicated to science

[guest39538]

David,

it's refreshing to read a post of scientific value, in a forum dedicated to science

Bonjour, je viens de pirater ce compte

hahaha, imbéciles

[Bogie_smiles]

If you think it need further discussion, then go for it, but I think I've covered it already. The only factor relevant to the extended lifespan of unstable particles in particle accelerators is their speed of travel through space slowing their functionality and decay rate.

Ok, if you have covered it already, I'm good.

[Bogie_smiles]

If you think it need further discussion, then go for it, but I think I've covered it already …

Ok, if you have covered it already, I'm good.

David is not alone. He has, and I think Thebox too, has an issue with one generally accepted point he mentioned. That point was that the relative motion of an object does not add to or change the speed of light emitted from that object (or the speed of light measured by an apparatus on board that moving object). Science says that the velocity of light is always c in vacua, i.e., in empty space.


What I think @David Cooper and @Thebox mean is, for example, that if a speeding rocket has a head light, then one might think that the velocity of the light emitted by the head light might be c plus the velocity of the rocket. If that were the case, that would make the velocity of the rocket’s emitted light greater than the velocity through the same space of a beam of light from an independent source. The position of the scientific theory is, that regardless of the relative motion between the independent source of light and the motion of the rocket ship, both will traverse the same space at the same velocity. It follows that if that space was a vacuum, both would be traveling at c.

Theory says that the rocket’s head light beam will be emitted at, and travel through that local space at the same velocity as the beam of light traveling through the same space from any other source, going in any direction. The scientific position is that the speed of light in a vacuum is always c, and the velocity of light is slower than c in common space.

That is not just by definition (though that is a big part of it), but experiments are getting better at approximating the velocity of light in a vacuum, and there is every indication that it is going to ultimately be c, when, if ever, a perfect vacuum is available for testing (it won’t happen soon, lol). You need to try to envision all light in space from all sources, nearby and distant stars, etc., would be traversing the same patch of space at the same velocity, and if that space were to be a perfect vacuum, all of the light from all sources, regardless of their relative motion when the light is emitted, will be traveling through the same patch of space at the same velocity.

So let’s say science has it right. Then David, and Thebox, and many others would apparently have it wrong. The velocity of the light emitted by the headlight of a speeding rocket will never exceed c in a vacuum, even as the rocket approaches the speed of light itself. My take on the reason why, in less that 1000 words is:

[(Caution), the following contains ideas that are outside of current mainstream consensus thinking, and are posted for purposes of “Just Chat”]

1) First, there is the stipulation that the speed of light in space cannot exceed c, by theory, but because space is not a perfect vacuum, light traversing it could never really be going quite at c in the first place. So if it is never quite c, then what is it and why isn’t it c.

2) It isn’t c because there is no empty space, and c requires a vacuum consisting of empty space at 0 degrees Kelvin, with no outside influences. Because space is not a perfect vacuum, there is no light traversing space at c. But if the space through which light is traveling were to be cleared of everything in it (except the light waves in question), the velocity of that light would adjust itself, and if measured, would be found to be going at c, in accord with the premise that the velocity of light through a vacuum is always c.

3) What is in “otherwise empty space”, aside from the presence of our rocket and our beams of light, and various stray particles? In addition to particles and objects, space is filled with gravitational waves as predicted by Einstein, and as has been verified by LIGO. In addition to gravitational waves coming and going in all directions, there are influences like other light wave fronts going to and from all directions, the presence of massive objects, related magnetic fields, electric fields, etc. All of those things have a presence in space that affects the velocity of light through that space; one might call it the gravitational wave energy density profile of the local space. Depending on the density of all of those influences, the velocity of light through the local space is subject to those influences, and must be considered to be variable.

4) We know that objects in relative motion to each other emit gravitational waves because LIGO and ESA interferometers have detected them. Though the sources of the detected gravitational waves have so far been from massively energetic events like the in-swirling death spiral of two black holes or neutron stars, the simple event of an apple falling from a tree also emits seemingly insignificant amounts of gravitational wave energy associated with its motion as it falls, relative to the Earth. Those insignificant energy events all have the theoretical endless reach of gravity, and tiny as they are, combined with a potentially infinite amount of mass in the universe, the tiny increments of gravitational wave energy does add up to be meaningful at all points in space.


5) If #4 is true, than all particles are composed of wave energy, and would be classified as wave-particles, composed of wave energy that is emitted and absorbed in quantum increments. On that basis, photons would have mass, and would be the only particles traversing space at the speed of light because they are emitted by orbital electrons at the speed of light. Photons, with mass, would then logically be emitting their own out flowing gravitational wave energy like all objects with mass, but the photon wave-particle is unique because its out flowing gravitational wave energy component is emitted spherically while the photon itself is traveling in an essentially straight path through the local space at the speed of light. That would make light, which is associated with all photons, the out flowing gravitational wave energy component from the photon wave-particles. Though the emission of “light” would be unique to the photon wave-particle, every object, every particle with mass, every energetic event associated with relative motion between any and every two objects, will emit gravitational wave energy into the local gravitational wave energy density profile of space. Their gravitational wave energy will traverse space until the energy wave fronts are interrupted by being absorbed by other particles and objects.

6) Logic tells us that if objects emit gravitational wave energy at the local speed light, then unless they have a natural way to absorb energy to replace the emitted gravitational wave energy, they would “evaporate”. If they evaporated, soon space would not contain any massive objects at all. Space would be filled with only the energy equivalent of all matter, in the form of gravitational wave energy traversing the medium of space in all directions, at the local speed of light and gravity. As far as I know, Science does not yet teach the general topic of the inflow and out flow of gravitational wave energy components by massive objects, so if the logic seems right to anyone, like it does to me, then it is another “as yet” unknown that awaits being addressed by the scientific community. I call it the Big Wait, lol.

7) If all particles are wave-particles, composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments, then photons would contain mass equivalent to the quanta that they contain as a result of their emission from electrons. Photons would maintain a presence in space as massive particles, composed of quanta, via their hypothetical inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy components as hypothesized above. Uniquely though, all of the photon’s inflowing wave energy component would come from just one direction, the direction of their motion through space, enabling then to always travel at the local speed of light in the direction of the inflowing component of wave energy from the unique direction of motion imparted to them when they were emitted by the electron.

In conclusion, for those reasons, the velocity of the light emitted by the headlight of a speeding rocket will never exceed c in a vacuum, even as the rocket approaches the speed of light itself.

[David Cooper]

David is not alone. He has, and I think Thebox too, has an issue with one generally accepted point he mentioned.

I don't know sufficiently well what The Box's current position is, so I can't speak for him.

That point was that the relative motion of an object does not add to or change the speed of light emitted from that object (or the speed of light measured by an apparatus on board that moving object). Science says that the velocity of light is always c in vacua, i.e., in empty space.

I have no issue with that at all. If you travel at 0.99c, the light from your headlights moves at c, and that means it's only 0.01c faster than you (although you will still measure it as moving at c relative to you if you assume that you are at rest).

...The position of the scientific theory is, that regardless of the relative motion between the independent source of light and the motion of the rocket ship, both will traverse the same space at the same velocity. It follows that if that space was a vacuum, both would be traveling at c.

Indeed - light emitted from the rocket will be of a much higher frequency than the people in the rocket think, although it will be suppressed a bit by the functionality of that emitter running slow.

So let’s say science has it right. Then David, and Thebox, and many others would apparently have it wrong.

Again, I can't speak for the box, but you've misread my position. The speed of light through space (whether the aether or vacuum) is c (unless it's slowed by gravity, but that's irrelevant in deep space and is barely relevant here too). It's actually Einstein's original SR that broke the rule by making out that the speed of light relative to object A is c in every direction relative to object A while the speed of light relative to object B is also c in every direction relative to object B even though objects A and B are moving relative to each other. The result of that would be that the light moving relative to object A at c could be overtaken by the light moving relative to object B at c along the exact same path. That would have to be possible if all frames of reference are equally true. In reality, only one frame can be providing a true account of reality and all the others must be wrong.

1) First, there is the stipulation that the speed of light in space cannot exceed c, by theory, but because space is not a perfect vacuum, light traversing it could never really be going quite at c in the first place. So if it is never quite c, then what is it and why isn’t it c.

Being an infinitesimal amount slower than c can be counted as c when dealing with the twins paradox.

2) It isn’t c because there is no empty space, and c requires a vacuum consisting of empty space at 0 degrees Kelvin, with no outside influences. Because space is not a perfect vacuum, there is no light traversing space at c. But if the space through which light is traveling were to be cleared of everything in it (except the light waves in question), the velocity of that light would adjust itself, and if measured, would be found to be going at c, in accord with the premise that the velocity of light through a vacuum is always c.

If you carry out the twins paradox deep in a gravity well, the speed of light there might be 0.5c, but if so, the functionality of every component of the experiment is also running with its functionality running at half the rate it would do in deep space, so all you're doing is complifying it by bringing in an unnecessary gravity field which has an equal effect on everything. In deep space though, the amount of stuff you have flying though that space is so lacking in mass that there is practically no gravity well depth there at all.

3) What is in “otherwise empty space”, aside from the presence of our rocket and our beams of light, and various stray particles? In addition to particles and objects, space is filled with gravitational waves as predicted by Einstein, and as has been verified by LIGO. In addition to gravitational waves coming and going in all directions, there are influences like other light wave fronts going to and from all directions, the presence of massive objects, related magnetic fields, electric fields, etc. All of those things have a presence in space that affects the velocity of light through that space; one might call it the gravitational wave energy density profile of the local space. Depending on the density of all of those influences, the velocity of light through the local space is subject to those influences, and must be considered to be variable.

You are obsessed with an infinitesimally small factor - it would be like arguing about the impact on a race between two runners where one has had a bacterium dropped onto his head before the start - for sure it will slow him down because it adds mass to him, but it is not a factor worth considering unless you have timing equipment that can measure brazillionths of a femtosecond.

4) We know that objects in relative motion to each other emit gravitational waves because LIGO and ESA interferometers have detected them. Though the sources of the detected gravitational waves have so far been from massively energetic events like the in-swirling death spiral of two black holes or neutron stars, the simple event of an apple falling from a tree also emits seemingly insignificant amounts of gravitational wave energy associated with its motion as it falls, relative to the Earth. Those insignificant energy events all have the theoretical endless reach of gravity, and tiny as they are, combined with a potentially infinite amount of mass in the universe, the tiny increments of gravitational wave energy does add up to be meaningful at all points in space.

They add up to virtually nothing if your interest is in how much they slow the speed of light.

6) Logic tells us that if objects emit gravitational wave energy at the local speed light, then unless they have a natural way to absorb energy to replace the emitted gravitational wave energy, they would “evaporate”.

Then that tells you that they don't ordinarily emit such energy, and that when they do so, it is taken from the kinetic energy they're carrying and not from the structural energy of which they are made.

7) If all particles are wave-particles, composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments, then photons would contain mass equivalent to the quanta that they contain as a result of their emission from electrons. Photons would maintain a presence in space as massive particles, composed of quanta, via their hypothetical inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy components as hypothesized above. Uniquely though, all of the photon’s inflowing wave energy component would come from just one direction, the direction of their motion through space, enabling then to always travel at the local speed of light in the direction of the inflowing component of wave energy from the unique direction of motion imparted to them when they were emitted by the electron.

In conclusion, for those reasons, the velocity of the light emitted by the headlight of a speeding rocket will never exceed c in a vacuum, even as the rocket approaches the speed of light itself.

There's a much simpler reason for the speed of light not exceeding c, and that's that c is the speed that space-dependent waves travel at through the fabric of space just as the speed of the sound is the speed that air-dependent waves travel through air. We know though just by looking out at the space around us that there is little in the way of distortion - the speed of light out there is practically c because if there was significant variation, there would be very obvious optical effects which we simply aren't seeing.

[Bogie_smiles]

I have no issue with that at all. If you travel at 0.99c, the light from your headlights moves at c, and that means it's only 0.01c faster than you (although you will still measure it as moving at c relative to you if you assume that you are at rest).


Indeed - light emitted from the rocket will be of a much higher frequency than the people in the rocket think, although it will be suppressed a bit by the functionality of that emitter running slow.


Again, I can't speak for the box, but you've misread my position. The speed of light through space (whether the aether or vacuum) is c (unless it's slowed by gravity, but that's irrelevant in deep space and is barely relevant here too). It's actually Einstein's original SR that broke the rule by making out that the speed of light relative to object A is c in every direction relative to object A while the speed of light relative to object B is also c in every direction relative to object B even though objects A and B are moving relative to each other. The result of that would be that the light moving relative to object A at c could be overtaken by the light moving relative to object B at c along the exact same path. That would have to be possible if all frames of reference are equally true. In reality, only one frame can be providing a true account of reality and all the others must be wrong.


Being an infinitesimal amount slower than c can be counted as c when dealing with the twins paradox.


If you carry out the twins paradox deep in a gravity well, the speed of light there might be 0.5c, but if so, the functionality of every component of the experiment is also running with its functionality running at half the rate it would do in deep space, so all you're doing is complifying it by bringing in an unnecessary gravity field which has an equal effect on everything. In deep space though, the amount of stuff you have flying though that space is so lacking in mass that there is practically no gravity well depth there at all.


You are obsessed with an infinitesimally small factor - it would be like arguing about the impact on a race between two runners where one has had a bacterium dropped onto his head before the start - for sure it will slow him down because it adds mass to him, but it is not a factor worth considering unless you have timing equipment that can measure brazillionths of a femtosecond.


They add up to virtually nothing if your interest is in how much they slow the speed of light.


Then that tells you that they don't ordinarily emit such energy, and that when they do so, it is taken from the kinetic energy they're carrying and not from the structural energy of which they are made.


There's a much simpler reason for the speed of light not exceeding c, and that's that c is the speed that space-dependent waves travel at through the fabric of space just as the speed of the sound is the speed that air-dependent waves travel through air. We know though just by looking out at the space around us that there is little in the way of distortion - the speed of light out there is practically c because if there was significant variation, there would be very obvious optical effects which we simply aren't seeing.

Let’s see if we agree on what the main point is that stimulates our discussion:

I’m on record in this thread saying that 1) there is no absolute time. Briefly, 2) my position is that the universe has always existed and so there never was a start of time or an original point of space, and 3) the rate that a clock measures the passing of time is governed by the local energy density where the clock is ticking away. 4) There is no clock, light clock, atomic clock, human twins, etc. that can measure the passing of absolute time.

I listed four points. If you agree that we need to define the scope of our discussion, would you mind stating your response to each of my four points?

Further:
https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/time-dilation1.htm

included in the "Principia Mathematica" a scholium, or an appendix of explanatory notes, and in it he defined several important principles, including the idea of absolute time. Although he understood that clocks[/url] weren't perfect and measuring time was subject to human error, Newton believed in an absolute time that was similar to a universal, omnipotent God-like time, one that was the same for everyone, everywhere. In other words, someone standing at the North Pole on Earth[/url] would experience time the same way as someone standing on Mars[/url].[/font][/size]

5) Do you believe in absolute time as defined by Newton?

[David Cooper]

Let’s see if we agree on what the main point is that stimulates our discussion:

I’m on record in this thread saying that 1) there is no absolute time. Briefly, 2) my position is that the universe has always existed and so there never was a start of time or an original point of space, and 3) the rate that a clock measures the passing of time is governed by the local energy density where the clock is ticking away. 4) There is no clock, light clock, atomic clock, human twins, etc. that can measure the passing of absolute time.

I listed four points. If you agree that we need to define the scope of our discussion, would you mind stating your response to each of my four points?

(1) I say there is an absolute time and that some clocks come closer than others to measuring it. Clocks that are moving under-record the amount of time that has passed, and so do clocks in a gravity well.

(2) We seem to have an expanding space fabric, but this may be expanding within an outer fabric (with more dimensions) which doesn't expand or contract (we can only speculate about that). The universe is the inner fabric which can expand and contract, but it may be of infinite duration (with the time between two big bongs being a chapter of the universe if it's possible for it to contract back down to a point). We can only speculate about this at present, but the idea that time started at the big bong is an SR/GR idea based on the "time dimension" being time - a "time dimension" is not time though, so it's a bogus idea.

(3) The local energy density is related to the rate at which a clock runs slow, and all clocks have some energy in them which must cause an infinitesimal slowing of their functionality even if they're in an empty universe. Even a photon travelling through space provides an energy density >0 which means that it must slow itself down to a speed below c - a lower frequency photon should move faster than a higher frequency photon. This slowing is such a tiny effect though for a single photon that a gamma ray photon and radio wave photon should effectively travel at the same speed across billions of lightyears of space - the other radiation around them as they travel will affect them equally and will slow them down much more, but there are more photons in the space near where we are due to the presence of the sun, and they have little slowing effect where we are, so by the time you're in deep space, it's an irrelevant effect. Of more relevance could be the virtual particles "pinging into and out of existance" in any volume of space anywhere - if that produces a high energy density everywhere, that could be slowing all clocks everywhere to the point where they're only measuring a tiny amount of the actual time that's passed there, in which case there could be a strong impact on clock speeds even in the emptiest places in the universe, but such an effect would be universal and has no impact on the twins paradox result, so at least we can discuss the implications of the twins paradox and come to reliable conclusions about some aspects of how the universe works. I also doubt that virtual particles count towards energy density though, but they take me outside of the range of my knowledge, so I can't rule that possibility in or out yet.

(4) If the energy density in deep space is close to zero, a stationary clock there would almost tick at the same rate as absolute time.

Further:
https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/time-dilation1.htm

included in the "Principia Mathematica" a scholium, or an appendix of explanatory notes, and in it he defined several important principles, including the idea of absolute time. Although he understood that clocks[/url] weren't perfect and measuring time was subject to human error, Newton believed in an absolute time that was similar to a universal, omnipotent God-like time, one that was the same for everyone, everywhere. In other words, someone standing at the North Pole on Earth[/url] would experience time the same way as someone standing on Mars[/url].[/font][/size]

5) Do you believe in absolute time as defined by Newton?

His definition is wrong where it says they "would experience time the same way" - they wouldn't because someone standing on Mars would record more time passing than someone standing on the Earth during the same length of absolute time. Both are exposed to the same amount of absolute time though. A photon travelling from location X to location Y and back again might take a year to make the trip, but it has its functionality (or rather, the component of its functionality that isn't simply it's movement through space) completely frozen by its speed of travel, so no time is recorded by its "clock", and yet it has been exposed to a year of absolute time during its travels.

[Bogie_smiles]

Reply #67

Thank you, I understand, and you are not one to speculate. Your position is well stated, and for the most part, the differences between us are in areas where I am speculating beyond where you go, not limiting myself to known science and generally accepted theory.

I explain my scenarios as starting from various jumping off points in generally accepted physics and cosmology, and then venturing into the “as yet” unknowns. I fill the gaps between known science and the as yet unknowns with what I call "logic", trying to achieve a “prime objective” that I define as my personal view of cosmology, called the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model. I claim the ISU is internally consistent, and not inconsistent with generally accepted scientific observations and data.

I post my version of logic in various threads at a variety of science forums around the Internet, and that exposes my thinking to my layman level peers, who often willingly critique it, offer opposing arguments, criticism, encouragement, etc, but their job is to falsify my speculations or point out inconsistencies. When and if they do, I then go back to the drawing board to work to bring the model back to meet my personal objective of internal consistency while avoiding inconsistencies with known science. I have been doing that for years.

The process that I invoke to develop and evolve the speculations that make up the ISU model is a “methodology” that I label as “reasonable and responsible” step-by-step speculation and hypothesis.

I am continually trying to apply quantum thinking to the entire model, so that the processes work consistently between two main levels of quantized action. At the macro level, I invoke a process of big bang arena action, and at the micro level, I invoke a process of quantum action, and together they defeat entropy via two competing forces, quantum gravity and energy density equalization (expansion from dense environments of wave energy density to less dense environments). I have presented most of it here in my thread, "If there was one big bang event, why not multiple big bangs?"

Both levels are quantized in my model, and there is a striking “sameness” between the quantum processes at the macro and micro levels. The Big Bang Arena Process of the model features multiple big bang arena waves across the landscape of the greater universe, where big bang arenas like our own expanding arena wave, converge, overlap, and form big crunches out of their shared galactic matter and energy. Those crunches, through accretion, reach a limit called critical capacity, whereupon they collapse/bang into hot, dense expanding balls of plasma that expand, decay through a series of exotic particles until their space is filled with the essentially stable particles and galactic structure that we observe in our Hubble view. 

There is a similar scenario at the quantum level, where the counterpart to the big crunch is called a momentary high energy density spot, consisting of the convergence of many very tiny low energy gravitational waves that carry the tiniest increments of energy. High energy density spots support the presence of wave-particles that have survived the cooling, the expansion, and the decay of the hot dense plasma balls that emerge from the collapse/bang of the preceding big crunches.

These tiny energy increments are instrumental in the process of quantum action to not only produce and maintain the presence of wave-particles, but they also enable quantum gravity. The ISU model includes my proposed solution to quantum gravity, which I detail in my thread, “What are they saying about quantum gravity?”.

That is what I do, lol. Thank you for your participation, and if you ever want to venture into the “as yet” unknown, feel free to run your speculations and quantum thinking past me for some thoughtful contemplation.

[Bogie_smiles]

Reply #68

Continuing the chat by going back, lol …

I wanted to address the particulars in David Cooper’s last post. I don’t intend for @David Cooper to feel obligated to respond, because he has spoken eloquently about his positions, and I respect what he believes. I am not refuting anything he says from the perspective that he offers it. My comments are from the perspective of the ISU model and reflect my personal logic only.

(1) I say there is an absolute time and that some clocks come closer than others to measuring it. Clocks that are moving under-record the amount of time that has passed, and so do clocks in a gravity well.

I don’t have to believe in absolute time in order to understand what David is saying. He would be correct if there could be such a thing as absolute time, and in his universal view, that means that there could conceivably be a location in space where the speed of light is actually c.

My logic is, in order for there to be absolute time at any point in space, there cannot be any gravitational wave energy or light wave energy, or temperature in that portion of space, because the presence of those conditions preclude the speed of light reaching c.

When you consider the nature of limits, (as you approach an absolute value you are approaching a limit), the slope of the rate of change that characterizes the approaching limit is displayed by a slope that approaches straight up:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_03_12_18_11_39_25.jpeg

The upward curve of the graph represents the rate of decline in the energy density of space relative to zero density. Until the slope is very steep, the energy density of the local space is still pretty high, relative to the point where the curve approaches it steepest.

(2) We seem to have an expanding space fabric, but this may be expanding within an outer fabric (with more dimensions) which doesn't expand or contract (we can only speculate about that). The universe is the inner fabric which can expand and contract, but it may be of infinite duration (with the time between two big bongs being a chapter of the universe if it's possible for it to contract back down to a point). We can only speculate about this at present, but the idea that time started at the big bong is an SR/GR idea based on the "time dimension" being time - a "time dimension" is not time though, so it's a bogus idea.

That is a round-about way of making the point, and I get it. What you call the inner expanding space fabric is akin to what we observe in our Hubble view, where distant galaxies have red shifts that indicate that galaxies and galactic structure are all moving away from each other at an accelerating rate, as far as we can see. And in my ISU model, that is consistent with observations within our expanding big bang arena wave. But in an infinite and eternal universe like the ISU model, it is not the case. When the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe is the perspective, the universe is an infinite, steady state of dynamic, perpetual, big bang arena action, where entropy is defeated, and where there is no location where absolute zero temperature exists (required for c to occur, and for absolute time to exist).

(3) The local energy density is related to the rate at which a clock runs slow, and all clocks have some energy in them which must cause an infinitesimal slowing of their functionality even if they're in an empty universe.

Agreed.

Even a photon traveling through space provides an energy density >0 which means that it must slow itself down to a speed below c - a lower frequency photon should move faster than a higher frequency photon.

Agreed.

This slowing is such a tiny effect though for a single photon that a gamma ray photon and radio wave photon should effectively travel at the same speed across billions of lightyears of space - the other radiation around them as they travel will affect them equally and will slow them down much more, but there are more photons in the space near where we are due to the presence of the sun, and they have little slowing effect where we are, so by the time you're in deep space, it's an irrelevant effect.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_03_12_18_11_39_25.jpegLet me point to this slope again, because the decline in energy density relative to absolute time is very steep, meaning that before you get to zero density, you still have a significant amount of energy in space.

Of more relevance could be the virtual particles "pinging into and out of existence" in any volume of space anywhere - if that produces a high energy density everywhere, that could be slowing all clocks everywhere to the point where they're only measuring a tiny amount of the actual time that's passed there, in which case there could be a strong impact on clock speeds even in the emptiest places in the universe…

You are acknowledging an import point and a meaningful feature of the ISU model.

… but such an effect would be universal and has no impact on the twins paradox result, so at least we can discuss the implications of the twins paradox and come to reliable conclusions about some aspects of how the universe works.

That is an open minded statement/position, and I maintain that the level of energy density will have an effect on the amount of aging difference between the twins. If there is more significant density throughout the universe due to virtual particles, then the accelerated twin will appear to be even younger in the end, than if the energy density was lower when virtual particles are ignored.

I also doubt that virtual particles count towards energy density though, but they take me outside of the range of my knowledge, so I can't rule that possibility in or out yet.

Coincidently, that is where I use the methodology of speculation and hypothesis. I speculate that the presence of higher energy density is directly related to a higher occurrence of virtual particles.

(4) If the energy density in deep space is close to zero, a stationary clock there would almost tick at the same rate as absolute time.

That is one opinion, if there was absolute time. However, I think you are underestimating the amount of wave energy in space, even in the deepest space, as I tried to show using the image of the rate of change in the speed of light as density declines.First, let me ask if you are you going to be including any gravitational wave energy in the energy density of space. Unless you decide to acknowledge that all mass emits gravitational wave energy, which is consistent with Einstein’s prediction, you are going to be attributing a much lower level of energy density to space in the universe than if such emissions (and the speculated corresponding absorptions) are occurring.Second, the presence of mass that emits gravitational wave energy suggests that mass also absorbs roughly equal amounts of gravitational wave energy from the medium of space, to avoid entirely “evaporating” into the gravitational wave energy background. I’m ready to chat about that, so think about it. … and about (5)

His definition is wrong where it says they "would experience time the same way" - they wouldn't because someone standing on Mars would record more time passing than someone standing on the Earth during the same length of absolute time. Both are exposed to the same amount of absolute time though. A photon traveling from location X to location Y and back again might take a year to make the trip, but it has its functionality (or rather, the component of its functionality that isn't simply its movement through space) completely frozen by its speed of travel, so no time is recorded by its "clock", and yet it has been exposed to a year of absolute time during its travels.

My expected come back is that there is no absolute time in the ISU, so does anyone else want to weigh in on the chat about absolute time? This is the absolute time to do that, lol.

[guest39538]

My expected come back is that there is no absolute time in the ISU,

Space does not  age or alter ,  it is 0 constant .

[Bogie_smiles]

My expected come back is that there is no absolute time in the ISU,

Space does not  age or alter ,  it is 0 constant .

I agree, on the basis that in my ISU model, space is always infinite, and though time simply passes, it is measured by clocks to be passing at different rates based on the local energy density of the environment where the measurement is being made.

[guest39538]

My expected come back is that there is no absolute time in the ISU,

Space does not  age or alter ,  it is 0 constant .

I agree, on the basis that in my ISU model, space is always infinite, and though time simply passes, it is measured by clocks to be passing at different rates based on the local energy density of the environment where the measurement is being made.

Time  does not pass  by ., things  age  relative to space 0 constant .   We don't measure  ''time'' ,  we record  history .

Aging changes due to energy density ,  go nearer the Sun you will age fast . 

[Bogie_smiles]

Time  does not pass  by ., things  age  relative to space 0 constant .   We don't measure  ''time'' ,  we record  history .

Interesting concept, but give me some space to post from a perspective that differs from your zero constant space model. I speak from my personal view, the ISU model I’ve been chatting about, and though I certainly don’t present my view as being factual because I don’t offer any extraordinary evidence, I don’t consider your view to be factual either, for the same reason, lol.

Aging changes due to energy density ,  go nearer the Sun you will age fast .

Not in the ISU; you age slower as the energy density increases, as it does as you approach the sun, unless you count burning to a crisp as aging fast.

[guest39538]

I don’t consider your view to be factual either, for the same reason, lol.

Please  feel free  to measure the aging of space , try to  destroy space .  You can remove all the matter from the universe , but you can't remove space, can't create space ,  space is  nothingness,  nothingness can not be less than nothingness it can only be more than nothingness.

[Bogie_smiles]

Please  feel free  to measure the aging of space , try to  destroy space .  You can remove all the matter from the universe , but you can't remove space, can't create space ,  space is  nothingness,  nothingness can not be less than nothingness it can only be more than nothingness.

OK, I have gathered up all of the matter in the universe so we can get it out of space; Now where do you want me to put it?



Edit: I know where you are going to suggest, but forget it, it won't all fit there, lol.

[guest39538]

Please  feel free  to measure the aging of space , try to  destroy space .  You can remove all the matter from the universe , but you can't remove space, can't create space ,  space is  nothingness,  nothingness can not be less than nothingness it can only be more than nothingness.

OK, I have gathered up all of the matter in the universe so we can get it out of space; Now where do you want me to put it?



Edit: I know where you are going to suggest, but forget it, it won't all fit there, lol.

You can put  the matter in  your  imagination of  a  void ,  the voids  emptiness should allow  you to see  that  there is no matter in the beginning .

[Bogie_smiles]

You can put  the matter in  your  imagination of  a  void ,  the voids  emptiness should allow  you to see  that  there is no matter in the beginning .

I get what you are saying, but remember, in the ISU model there was no beginning. I would appreciate it, Mr. Thebox, if you would use your imagination, not of a void as you suggest I do, but of a universe that has always existed, like I propose. How do you respond?

[Colin2B]

Now where do you want me to put it?

Edit: I know where you are going to suggest, but forget it, it won't all fit there, lol.

Maybe not, but there are a few people on here with the capacity 

[Bogie_smiles]

Maybe not, but there are a few people on here with the capacity 

That is a shocking thought, shocking 

[jimbobghost]

ripping off and paraphrasing lines from Casablanca is not worthy of you Bogie.

(as well as stealing names from said movie).