[Bogie_smiles]

Besides that, lol.

[ATMD]

Yes, I have a Buddhist friend who says that the universe has always existed. I try to be open-minded about it. Eternity is extremely difficult to grasp, but I am trying

Yes, but of the various alternatives, I find “always existed” the easiest to grasp, lol.

Modern cosmology seems to indicate that our universe had a beginning, but it could have been a part of an eternal cycle.

True. The observed redshift leads to an effort to back track the expansion, and sometimes I think you can get carried away with how far you can realistically carry out the back tracking.

Some say stop at the cyclical idea, and others go all the way to back track to an infinitely dense, zero volume, point space :shrug:

I started a thread a couple of years ago in the New Theories sub-forum that I called, “If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs”. It played out over a long time without much support before it died out. One point of interest was that the cyclical models were brought up and discussed. I find those models to fail, not only because they would seem to lose energy with each cycle, but because they are generally considered to be finite models. Being finite then again begs the question of a beginning, and we are back to my preferred explanation for the existence of the universe, which is that it may have “always existed”

A model of the universe where the universe has always existed and is infinite
This model makes the universe the same as "God" in theology.

[David Cooper]

What you call event-meshing failures are a symptom of imposing the concept of absolute time.

Not so - if you're going to have time at all (with running events rather than a static block in which all change is mere illusion) then you will automatically run into these event-meshing failures if you have time run at different rates for different things - this reveals the necessity of absolute time rather than having absolute time as a starting point. Anyone who tries to produce a mechanistic description of reality will run into this issue if they take it far enough. Writing a working simulation is impossible to do without encountering the problem, and building a real universe would lead to the same discovery. Those who do write simulations of models that lack absolute time have no option other than to sneak absolute time in in order to coordinate the action properly, but they then typically cheat by not declaring that this is part of the mechanism they're using - they assert that it works without absolute time, but if they strip out the hidden absolute time from the model, the model breaks. This happens in every single case without exception.

What you call event-meshing, I call evidence of varying energy densities throughout the gravitational wave energy density profile space. Two different perspectives, but mine doesn’t require recalculating the natural synchronization of events to accommodate the invocation of the perspective of absolute time; a perspective that cannot exist in a universe where it is impossible for any clock to display the rate that absolute time passes. I know, you fall back on the fact that clocks, by their physical nature, are prevented from measuring absolute time, but I’m not swayed because I think my explanation for the variable rate that clocks measure time is more realistic.

You still don't appear to understand the problem. If I was to simulate your model, how am I going to have it run through the events it simulates? (Or, if I was going to build your universe, how would I have it run through the events that it accommodates?) If we separate clocks A and B to put clock A into an area of higher energy density than clock B for a while and then reunite them, we find that clock A has recorded less time while they were apart. We can do this ten times in an identical way and each time the time difference between the clocks while they're separated will be the same - it is a systematic difference. If we put clock A into a place with an even higher energy density, it will lead to a greater difference in the times recorded for the two clocks, but again it's all coordinated in a precise way by a mechanism which makes the results fully predictable. What does that mechanism require for the coordination to work? If there is no connection between the two locations, how is clock A going to run slower than clock B? Why can't it run faster than clock B instead - it isn't going to know how fast clock B is ticking, so how can it know to go slower than clock B? How does the space with a higher energy density know to make clock A run slower than it would run if there was less energy density there? What governs the speed of functionality of the space with high energy density in it? We have to look for the governor. If we don't have one, we don't have coordination and it just becomes random - there's no reason why the clocks shouldn't just go on running in sync or with a random, fluctuating synchronisation leading to wildly different results every time we run the experiment. What makes clock A run slow at a precise rate relative to clock B? What makes the space with the higher energy density slow clock A down to that precise rate? These are not questions that can be ignored if you're writing a simulation or building a real universe. You need to specify a potentially-complete mechanism, and without absolute time, you don't have that so your model is incomplete and won't function properly.

I offered the concept that if clocks were positioned everywhere throughout the universe, then the average rate that they measured the passing of time would approximate a universal rate. You could compare each clock to that average, instead of claiming the only comparison must be to some concept of absolute time that no clock anywhere in the universe can tick at (even when we disregard the “built in” slowed functionality of all clocks).

That's a mighty complicated mechanism for coordinating the ticking rates of clocks if you have to consult a gazillion clocks and average their ticking rates before working out how long it should be before the next tick of each of them. The rational way to do things is to have time run at the maximum possible rate everywhere as that gives you automatic coordination without any comparisons being needed to maintain sync. Local factors then slow the functionality of material and clocks, but without slowing time. When you have a high energy density in a location, that serves as a medium to slow the speed of light, and that's what slows clocks - light has to interact with the medium, and that's what slows it, but its actual functionality is unslowed because it just has more work to do in addition to moving (just like the difference between walking through an empty room and having to push your way through a crowded room (whether politely or impolitely) - it isn't your time slowing down that makes it take longer).

There are vast stretches of deep space where your disregard for the tiny density fluctuations are certainly too insignificant to be concerned with. However, the places in my model where they become significant is within the inner workings of wave-particles, and in places where the presence of nearby massive objects affects the local gravitational wave energy density profile of the space surrounding them because of their outflowing gravitational wave energy.

In which case, you need to be careful not to bring that into play in discussions of the standard twins paradox experiment in deep space where it has no relevance. In such cases, we only need to consider the role of the movement through space in slowing clocks down.

4) The gravitational waves only carry away the energy lost by orbital decay. If you have two things orbiting each other and maintaining separation orbit by orbit, you have no energy being lost and there cannot be any gravitational waves coming off the system as that would require extra energy to come out of nothing.

We don’t agree on that point. To my knowledge there is no "perfect" orbit because the orbiting objects are affected by the relative difference in their proximity to other celestial objects. Celestial mechanics would certainly require energy to keep objects in perfect orbits, i.e., without perturbations.

But do you agree that energy doesn't appear by magic to travel away as gravitational waves? The lack of perfect orbits isn't important - hardly any energy is lost from orbiting planets in the form of gravitational waves - it is an infinitesimal amount of their movement energy that is lost in this way, so you need to be careful not to exaggerate the scale of the potential role of such waves. With black hole and neutron star mergers we have extremely rapid orbit decay taking place in the latter stages, and that's where the gravitational waves momentarily become significant for things far away.

I think we agree that there is a natural mechanism that slows the functionality of clocks in relative motion, and I think we agree that time doesn’t slow down or speed up as a result of that natural effect.  I would define the recording of time as way we value the rate that clocks tick as displayed by the movement of their dial, as they carryout their measurement. Clocks therefore will slow down or speed up, depending on the gravitational wave energy density of their local environment.

If you put a block of glass into a light clock, it ticks more slowly due to the light taking longer to pass through the glass, but time has not slowed down - the light just has more work to do to get where it's going and that work takes time. High energy density is a medium too, slowing light down and making everything function more slowly. The clock is not recording all the time that has actually passed - it is having to do more work than a clock in a low energy density environment, but it fails to record the time that it takes to do that extra work.

The maths you are talking about are theory specific, as in Special Relativity Lorentz transformations, or as in the varying tensor values that come into play in GR as relative motion occurs. My model is consistent with those maths because thy are close enough to guide rockets into orbits and to permit spaceship docking, with the human visuals that are also involved, and the various tolerances

The maths is universe-specific. All viable theories have to conform to it.

Agreed, we do achieve high precision in the calculations, but the vagueness I was referring to was the difference between those highly precise measurements, and the impossible to measure absolute time.

All the clock speeds are precise in relation to the fastest possible clock that the universe can hold. That clock may be ticking slower than absolute time too, but again it will be a precise amount slower - being impossible for us to access doesn't make it vague. It may be ticking a quintillion times more slowly than an absolute time outside of the universe, but it is doing something precise.

I understand that if there was an absolute time, it would be ticking faster than the universal average that I defined. My point is that there is no place in the universe where your absolute time is actually occurring, and so my definition of a universal average rate of time passing is conceptually superior to an “impossible” absolute rate of time passing, IMHO.

No - there is no place in the universe where a clock is ticking at the same rate as absolute time, but that doesn't mean that absolute time isn't running everywhere at full speed. When we put a block of glass into a light clock, the faster time that governs the action is still fully in charge of how long it takes for the light to cross from mirror to mirror and how long it takes to interact with the medium that it's having to fight its way through.

For starters, can you give me a coordinate system that would be useful in finding our way around absolute space? Let’s assume we start at an arbitrary location somewhere in space, travel from that location for any period of time, and wish to return back to the exact point that our journey originated.

When I was referring to absolute space, I was thinking in terms of there being one frame of reference which is stationary relative to that space while all others are moving relative to it. There may be no such frame in the universe though (because our three space dimensions could be wrapped up within the surface of an expanding sphere of four dimensions), so such an absolute space would be external to the universe. However, for short trips in space you can do everything you need to using standard Cartesian geometry with everything behaving as if you are dealing with absolute space, and if you aren't, the action will simply run slower while be timed as if it's unslowed.

[Bogie_smiles]

A model of the universe where the universe has always existed and is infinite
This model makes the universe the same as "God" in theology.

I like the "all inclusive" nature of the ISU model

[ATMD]

A model of the universe where the universe has always existed and is infinite
This model makes the universe the same as "God" in theology.

I like the "all inclusive" nature of the ISU model

I like it too

[guest39538]

A model of the universe where the universe has always existed and is infinite
This model makes the universe the same as "God" in theology.

I like the "all inclusive" nature of the ISU model

Yes ,  in an  infinite  universe  that  always  existed ,  ''creation''  is  an  explanation  of  ''itself'' . God  would be  infinite  and  equal  to the Universe . No thing can exist beyond infinite   because infinite has no boundary .

[Bogie_smiles]

Not so - if you're going to have time at all (with running events rather than a static block in which all change is mere illusion) then you will automatically run into these event-meshing failures if you have time run at different rates for different things - this reveals the necessity of absolute time rather than having absolute time as a starting point. Anyone who tries to produce a mechanistic description of reality will run into this issue if they take it far enough. Writing a working simulation is impossible to do without encountering the problem, and building a real universe would lead to the same discovery. Those who do write simulations of models that lack absolute time have no option other than to sneak absolute time in in order to coordinate the action properly, but they then typically cheat by not declaring that this is part of the mechanism they're using - they assert that it works without absolute time, but if they strip out the hidden absolute time from the model, the model breaks. This happens in every single case without exception.


You still don't appear to understand the problem. If I was to simulate your model, how am I going to have it run through the events it simulates? (Or, if I was going to build your universe, how would I have it run through the events that it accommodates?) If we separate clocks A and B to put clock A into an area of higher energy density than clock B for a while and then reunite them, we find that clock A has recorded less time while they were apart. We can do this ten times in an identical way and each time the time difference between the clocks while they're separated will be the same - it is a systematic difference. If we put clock A into a place with an even higher energy density, it will lead to a greater difference in the times recorded for the two clocks, but again it's all coordinated in a precise way by a mechanism which makes the results fully predictable. What does that mechanism require for the coordination to work? If there is no connection between the two locations, how is clock A going to run slower than clock B? Why can't it run faster than clock B instead - it isn't going to know how fast clock B is ticking, so how can it know to go slower than clock B? How does the space with a higher energy density know to make clock A run slower than it would run if there was less energy density there? What governs the speed of functionality of the space with high energy density in it? We have to look for the governor. If we don't have one, we don't have coordination and it just becomes random - there's no reason why the clocks shouldn't just go on running in sync or with a random, fluctuating synchronisation leading to wildly different results every time we run the experiment. What makes clock A run slow at a precise rate relative to clock B? What makes the space with the higher energy density slow clock A down to that precise rate? These are not questions that can be ignored if you're writing a simulation or building a real universe. You need to specify a potentially-complete mechanism, and without absolute time, you don't have that so your model is incomplete and won't function properly.


That's a mighty complicated mechanism for coordinating the ticking rates of clocks if you have to consult a gazillion clocks and average their ticking rates before working out how long it should be before the next tick of each of them. The rational way to do things is to have time run at the maximum possible rate everywhere as that gives you automatic coordination without any comparisons being needed to maintain sync. Local factors then slow the functionality of material and clocks, but without slowing time. When you have a high energy density in a location, that serves as a medium to slow the speed of light, and that's what slows clocks - light has to interact with the medium, and that's what slows it, but its actual functionality is unslowed because it just has more work to do in addition to moving (just like the difference between walking through an empty room and having to push your way through a crowded room (whether politely or impolitely) - it isn't your time slowing down that makes it take longer).


In which case, you need to be careful not to bring that into play in discussions of the standard twins paradox experiment in deep space where it has no relevance. In such cases, we only need to consider the role of the movement through space in slowing clocks down.


But do you agree that energy doesn't appear by magic to travel away as gravitational waves? The lack of perfect orbits isn't important - hardly any energy is lost from orbiting planets in the form of gravitational waves - it is an infinitesimal amount of their movement energy that is lost in this way, so you need to be careful not to exaggerate the scale of the potential role of such waves. With black hole and neutron star mergers we have extremely rapid orbit decay taking place in the latter stages, and that's where the gravitational waves momentarily become significant for things far away.


If you put a block of glass into a light clock, it ticks more slowly due to the light taking longer to pass through the glass, but time has not slowed down - the light just has more work to do to get where it's going and that work takes time. High energy density is a medium too, slowing light down and making everything function more slowly. The clock is not recording all the time that has actually passed - it is having to do more work than a clock in a low energy density environment, but it fails to record the time that it takes to do that extra work.

The maths is universe-specific. All viable theories have to conform to it.


All the clock speeds are precise in relation to the fastest possible clock that the universe can hold. That clock may be ticking slower than absolute time too, but again it will be a precise amount slower - being impossible for us to access doesn't make it vague. It may be ticking a quintillion times more slowly than an absolute time outside of the universe, but it is doing something precise.


No - there is no place in the universe where a clock is ticking at the same rate as absolute time, but that doesn't mean that absolute time isn't running everywhere at full speed. When we put a block of glass into a light clock, the faster time that governs the action is still fully in charge of how long it takes for the light to cross from mirror to mirror and how long it takes to interact with the medium that it's having to fight its way through.


When I was referring to absolute space, I was thinking in terms of there being one frame of reference which is stationary relative to that space while all others are moving relative to it. There may be no such frame in the universe though (because our three space dimensions could be wrapped up within the surface of an expanding sphere of four dimensions), so such an absolute space would be external to the universe. However, for short trips in space you can do everything you need to using standard Cartesian geometry with everything behaving as if you are dealing with absolute space, and if you aren't, the action will simply run slower while be timed as if it's unslowed.

Sadly, I am missing the opportunity of grasping your absolute time universe, and you can probably count yourself lucky to be missing out on enjoying my ISU, lol, with its universal gravitational wave energy density profile of space. It is that density profile that governs the rate that clocks individually measure the rate of that thing we call time. The clocks measure time passing by recording a variable number of ticks, relative to the gravitational wave energy density profile of the local space where they are counting their ticks.

I am going to go back and carefully read the details of your last post, and if I start to see the light, I’ll post some follow up questions.

[Bogie_smiles]

I like it too

Then I will consider that an acknowledgement that, to the extent you find it agreeable, you are in.

[Bogie_smiles]

Yes ,  in an  infinite  universe  that  always  existed ,  ''creation''  is  an  explanation  of  ''itself'' . God  would be  infinite  and  equal  to the Universe . No thing can exist beyond infinite   because infinite has no boundary .

I'll accept that wisdom without questioning it, until I have time to evaluate it against the philosophy that I derive from my ISU model. FYI, I do call that philosophy by the name of Eternal Intent, , which I have described here at TNS in a couple of threads.


I'll look it up and post a link to it.

[guest39538]

Yes ,  in an  infinite  universe  that  always  existed ,  ''creation''  is  an  explanation  of  ''itself'' . God  would be  infinite  and  equal  to the Universe . No thing can exist beyond infinite   because infinite has no boundary .

I'll accept that wisdom without questioning it, until I have time to evaluate it against the philosophy that I derive from my ISU model. FYI, I do call that philosophy by the name of Eternal Intent, , which I have described here at TNS in a couple of threads.


I'll look it up and post a link to it.

Yes please provide  a link ,  would like to read your wisdom . I will read it later though .

[Bogie_smiles]

Yes ,  in an  infinite  universe  that  always  existed ,  ''creation''  is  an  explanation  of  ''itself'' . God  would be  infinite  and  equal  to the Universe . No thing can exist beyond infinite   because infinite has no boundary .

I'll accept that wisdom without questioning it, until I have time to evaluate it against the philosophy that I derive from my ISU model. FYI, I do call that philosophy by the name of Eternal Intent, , which I have described here at TNS in a couple of threads.


I'll look it up and post a link to it.

Yes please provide  a link ,  would like to read your wisdom . I will read it later though .

Here it is. Feel free to comment:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg524158#msg524158

[Bogie_smiles]

I hear crickets, as usual, in response to posting the Eternal Intent essay, lol.

Over the years, since I wrote the essay on the philosophy of the ISU, I have continually been evolving the ISU model that it is based on. It seemed to me, during that time, that it would be appropriate for the ISU philosophy to evolve right along with the speculative physics and cosmological  content that makes up the ISU model, but so far I have always decided not to revise it.

It has easily been read by hundreds of layman science enthusiasts in various on-line forums over the years, and yet it remains as originally written. I guess the reasons it stays the same are that I have not received any complaints for posting it, criticisms about its content, or arguments against its conclusions; though on balance, there hasn’t been any outpouring of support or enthusiasm either, lol.

[guest39538]

I hear crickets, as usual, in response to posting the Eternal Intent essay, lol.

I like your  model  as  you  know ,   it  is better  than    most  of  the  science  I  have  read  before .  Take  pride  in that you  are  a  scientist  ,   although  you  may  never achieve  recognition ,  that's  the  science  arrogance  for  you .

[Bogie_smiles]

Thank you, Thebox.

I may be dabbling in science but I don't have any credentials to speak of, and so I may know a little, but it is really just enough to get my self in hot water around real scientists. So I don't pretend to be doing science, but instead, I follow science and intentionally go into speculation mode, which leads to speculation upon speculation, far beyond where real scientists know where stop, lol.

[jimbobghost]

Bogie,
"Besides that, lol."

I follow your writings, but seldom feel confident to add anything of value.

altho you rejected my suggestion of tracking outer space logistics via the use of bread crums, i have not given up.

i am currently exporing the use of highway flares, positioned at specific coordinates within solar systems. the remaining problem deals with the means of transport. since the distances are considerable, i am currently designing a warp drive, that may resolve the issue.

p.s. : do not allow any lack of scientific knowledge concern you. you obviously can stand up to any with degrees they might display to demonstrate their accomplishment in university studies. as you might suspect, i myself have little formal education in science, but i do not let that stand in my way of creative thinking.

[ATMD]

Bogie,
"Besides that, lol."

I follow your writings, but seldom feel confident to add anything of value.

altho you rejected my suggestion of tracking outer space logistics via the use of bread crums, i have not given up.

i am currently exporing the use of highway flares, positioned at specific coordinates within solar systems. the remaining problem deals with the means of transport. since the distances are considerable, i am currently designing a warp drive, that may resolve the issue.

p.s. : do not allow any lack of scientific knowledge concern you. you obviously can stand up to any with degrees they might display to demonstrate their accomplishment in university studies. as you might suspect, i myself have little formal education in science, but i do not let that stand in my way of creative thinking.

and take up comedy

[Bogie_smiles]

I follow your writings, but seldom feel confident to add anything of value.

Sometimes I find that when I add something fairly insignificant, which I do from time to time , it opens the discussion up to draw out better ideas, either on the part of the OP, or it sparks useful comments from members who might otherwise be hesitant to post at all. I think people come to science forums, not only to get answers from the moderators and experts, but to get a view of some typical discussions that go on among layman level members.

altho you rejected my suggestion of tracking outer space logistics via the use of bread crumbs, i have not given up.

Maybe I was going to steal the idea and use it elsewhere; you don’t know for sure.

i am currently exploring the use of highway flares, positioned at specific coordinates within solar systems. the remaining problem deals with the means of transport. since the distances are considerable, i am currently designing a warp drive, that may resolve the issue.

Interesting that you use the phrase “Warp Drive”. It brings up a topic that came to my mind last night while reading up on an old topic in a book by Paul Davies, “About Time, Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution” (1995). I was reading a paragraph referring to the curvature of spacetime in GR as the result of the presence of mass, i.e., the warping of space, that I wondered if that theoretical effect wasn’t the origin of the use of the word “warp” in the Warp Drive that became popular in science fiction. What do you think?

p.s. : do not allow any lack of scientific knowledge concern you. you obviously can stand up to any with degrees they might display to demonstrate their accomplishment in university studies. as you might suspect, i myself have little formal education in science, but i do not let that stand in my way of creative thinking.

Exactly! Though this is a very high level science forum, considering the talent that is behind it, they do make us layman feel comfortable in their hands off approach in the non-hard science forums. Also, I’ve said it before, but the ability to post and host images, which I take full advantage of, is a very big deal, and in addition to that, the fact that you have unlimited access to go back and edit/modify your posts.

[Bogie_smiles]

and take up comedy

As you can see, some of us don't need much encouragement to go for comedy.

[jimbobghost]

it helps me retain my sanity...might help others as well.

[Bogie_smiles]

@jimbobghost, it is true. They say that laughter is the best medicine.

Often though, my tries to be funny are me saying that I shouldn’t be taken too seriously. And that goes with the territory of being a compulsive layman science enthusiast posting in a reputable science forum like TNS. Thank you for reading my musings.

For example, why is dark energy such a mystery, given the Big Bang version of cosmology? After all, who doesn’t come up with a picture of the Big Bang as being a hot dense ball of energy, expanding out of a big bang event, during which exotic particles would form in the earliest moments? It seems obvious, given such an event, that rapid expansion would lead to rapid cooling, the earliest exotic particles would decay into a natural set of fundamental particles, filling the expanding volume of the big bang connected arena wave, and spreading in space as the wave encompasses more and more volume.

So isn’t it logical that as those fundamental particles, forming in an expanding, cooling wave energy environment, would have “separation momentum” relative to each other, imparted to them as they form? Wouldn’t they generally be moving away from each other as the volume of local space occupied by the expanding arena increases?

Sure, there is gravity in play. I have to believe that with the formation of particles, that the force of gravity is a natural consequence, and I expound on all of that in my threads, but this post is about comedy, compulsion and cosmology, lol. I’m heading for my layman science enthusiast’s alternative explanation for dark energy by asking the question, “Why is dark energy such a mystery”?.

1) We have a Big Bang event that features the rapid expansion of dense-state energy; a hot dense ball of energy in the form of a plasma wave.

2) We have initial, very massive exotic particles that formed during the rapid expansion and cooling of the dense-state energy, as the plasma wave breaks down.

3) We have the fundamental particles that form from the decay of those very massive exotic particles, and fill the young, expanding arena wave with the fundamental particles that are the building blocks of atoms and molecules.

4) We have separation momentum imparted to fundamental particles that causes them to be moving away from each other at the instant that they form.

5) We have the simultaneous advent of the force of gravity as the particles come into existence, and that sets up the interplay of the opposing forces of gravity and separation momentum.

6) In close quarters, the particles clump, form atoms, and the atoms are moving away from each other as the expansion and cooling continues.

7) We have the force of gravity at work to cause the atoms to clump and form huge hydrogen stars, which also conserve the separation momentum of the particles from which they formed, and so the huge first round stars are separating from each other as well.

8 ) The arena wave is filled with the first round of giant hydrogen stars which burn rapidly, go to supernovas all across the arena, filling the arena with dust clouds composed of heavy nuclei, atoms, and fundamental particles.

9) A second round of more stable stars form, which also display the conserved initial separation momentum that was imparted to the earliest particles, while the force of gravity is beginning to meaningfully impose itself as it causes the second round of stars to clump into the cosmic structures that we observe today. What we observe is that the galaxies and galactic structure are moving apart at an accelerating rate as the arena wave continues to expand, meaning that separation momentum is still winning out over gravity.

10) We attribute that observed separation of galaxies to a mysterious dark energy, but why not see it in the context of these ten steps in the natural progress of a big bang event, explaining why it shouldn’t be thought of as such a mystery?

Hoping for some comments on this scenario, lol.