Physicists continue work to abolish time as fourth dimension of space

Apr 14, 2012 by Lisa Zyga report
Light clocks A and B moving horizontally through space. According to length contraction, clock A should tick faster than clock B. In a new study, scientists argue that there is no length contraction, and both clocks should tick at the same rate in accordance with special relativity. Image credit: Sorli and Fiscaletti.

(Phys.org) -- Philosophers have debated the nature of time long before Einstein and modern physics. But in the 106 years since Einstein, the prevailing view in physics has been that time serves as the fourth dimension of space, an arena represented mathematically as 4D Minkowski spacetime. However, some scientists, including Amrit Sorli and Davide Fiscaletti, founders of the Space Life Institute in Slovenia, argue that time exists completely independent from space. In a new study, Sorli and Fiscaletti have shown that two phenomena of special relativity - time dilation and length contraction - can be better described within the framework of a 3D space with time as the quantity used to measure change (i.e., photon motion) in this space.

The scientists have published their article in a recent issue of Physics Essays. The work builds on their previous articles, in which they have investigated the definition of time as a “numerical order of material change.”

The main concepts of - that the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames, and that there is no absolute reference frame - are traditionally formulated within the framework of Minkowski spacetime. In this framework, the three spatial dimensions are intuitively visualized, while the time dimension is mathematically represented by an imaginary coordinate, and cannot be visualized in a concrete way.

In their paper, Sorli and Fiscaletti argue that, while the concepts of special relativity are sound, the introduction of 4D Minkowski spacetime has created a century-long misunderstanding of time as the of space that lacks any experimental support. They argue that well-known experiments, such as those demonstrating that clocks do in fact run slower in high-speed airplanes than at rest, support special relativity and time dilation but not necessarily Minkowski spacetime or length contraction. According to the conventional view, clocks run slower at high speeds due to the nature of Minkowski spacetime itself as a result of both time dilation and length contraction. But Sorli and Fiscaletti argue that the slow clocks can better be described by the relative velocity between the two reference frames, which the clocks measure, not which the clocks are a part of. In this view, space and time are two separate entities.

“With clocks we measure the numerical order of motion in ,” Sorli told Phys.org. “Time is 'separated' from space in a sense that time is not a fourth dimension of space. Instead, time as a numerical order of change exists in a 3D space. Our model on space and time is founded on measurement and corresponds better to physical reality.”

To illustrate the difference between the two views of time, Sorli and Fiscaletti consider an experiment involving two light clocks. Each clock's ticking mechanism consists of a photon being reflected back and forth between two mirrors, so that a photon's path from one mirror to the other represents one tick of the clock. The clocks are arranged perpendicular to each other on a platform, with clock A oriented horizontally and clock B vertically. When the platform is moved horizontally at a high speed, then according to the length contraction phenomenon in 4D spacetime, clock A should shrink so that its photon has a shorter path to travel, causing it to tick faster than clock B.

But Sorli and Fiscaletti argue that the length contraction of clock A and subsequent difference in the ticking rates of clocks A and B do not agree with special relativity, which postulates that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames. They say that, keeping the photon speed the same for both clocks, both clocks should tick at the same rate with no length contraction for clock A. They mathematically demonstrate how to resolve the problem in this way by replacing Minkowski 4D spacetime with a 3D space involving Galilean transformations for three spatial coordinates X, Y, and Z, and a mathematical equation (Selleri's formalism) for the transformation of the velocity of material change, which is completely independent of the spatial coordinates.

Sorli explained that this idea that both photon clocks tick at the same rate is not at odds with the experiments with flying clocks and other tests that have measured time dilation. This difference, he says, is due to a difference between photon clocks and atom-based clocks.

“The rate of photon clocks in faster inertial systems will not slow down with regard to the photon clocks in a rest inertial system because the speed of light is constant in all inertial systems,” he said. “The rate of atom clocks will slow down because the 'relativity' of physical starts at the scale of pi mesons.”

He also explained that, without length contraction, exists but in a different way than usually thought.

“Time dilatation exists not in the sense that time as a fourth dimension of space dilates and as a result the clock rate is slower,” he explained. “Time dilatation simply means that, in a faster inertial system, the velocity of change slows down and this is valid for all observers. GPS confirms that clocks in orbit stations have different rates from the clocks on the surface of the planet, and this difference is valid for observers that are on the orbit station and on the surface of the planet. So interpreted, 'time dilatation' does not require 'length contraction,' which as we show in our paper leads to a contradiction by the light clocks differently positioned in a moving inertial system.”

He added that the alternative definition of time also agrees with the notion of time held by the mathematician and philosopher Kurt Gödel.

“The definition of time as a numerical order of change in space is replacing the 106-year-old concept of time as a physical dimension in which change runs,” Sorli said. “We consider time being only a mathematical quantity of change that we measure with clocks. This is in accord with a Gödel view of time. By 1949, Gödel had produced a remarkable proof: 'In any universe described by the theory of relativity, time cannot exist.' Our research confirms Gödel's vision: time is not a physical dimension of space through which one could travel into the past or future.”

In the future, Sorli and Fiscaletti plan to investigate how this view of time fits with the broader surroundings. They note that other researchers have investigated abolishing the idea of spacetime in favor of separate space and entities, but often suggest that this perspective is best formulated within the framework of an ether, a physical medium permeating all of space. In contrast, Sorli and Fiscaletti think that the idea can be better modeled within the framework of a 3D quantum vacuum. Rather than viewing as a medium that carries light, light's propagation is governed by the electromagnetic properties (the permeability and permittivity) of the quantum vacuum.

“We are developing a mathematical model where gravity is a result of the diminished energy density of a 3D quantum vacuum caused by the presence of a given stellar object or material body,” Sorli said. “Inertial mass and gravitational mass have the same origin: diminished energy density of a quantum vacuum. This model gives exact calculations for the Mercury perihelion precession as calculations of the general theory of relativity.”

Explore further: The unifying framework of symmetry reveals properties of a broad range of physical systems

More information: Amrit Sorli and Davide Fiscaletti. “Special theory of relativity in a three-dimensional Euclidean space.” Physics Essays: March 2012, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 141-143. DOI: 10.4006/0836-1398-25.1.141

Related Stories

Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension

Apr 25, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- The concept of time as a way to measure the duration of events is not only deeply intuitive, it also plays an important role in our mathematical descriptions of physical systems. For instance, ...

Metamaterials used to mimic the Big Crunch

Jul 29, 2011

Spacetime analogs is an emerging field of physics in which scientists investigate systems having mathematical links with general relativity, and test their theories about the early behavior of the universe. The latest in ...

Proposed nuclear clock may keep time with the Universe

Mar 08, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- A proposed new time-keeping system tied to the orbiting of a neutron around an atomic nucleus could have such unprecedented accuracy that it neither gains nor loses 1/20th of a second in 14 ...

Doubly special relativity

Mar 21, 2011

General relativity, Einstein’s theory of gravity, gives us a useful basis for mathematically modeling the large scale universe – while quantum theory gives us a useful basis for modeling sub-atomic ...

New method developed for synchronizing clocks

Jul 20, 2010

Maintaining the correct time is no longer just a matter of keeping your watch wound -- especially when it comes to computers, telecommunications, and other complex systems. The clocks in these devices must stay accurate to ...

Recommended for you

What time is it in the universe?

Aug 29, 2014

Flavor Flav knows what time it is. At least he does for Flavor Flav. Even with all his moving and accelerating, with the planet, the solar system, getting on planes, taking elevators, and perhaps even some ...

Watching the structure of glass under pressure

Aug 28, 2014

Glass has many applications that call for different properties, such as resistance to thermal shock or to chemically harsh environments. Glassmakers commonly use additives such as boron oxide to tweak these ...

Inter-dependent networks stress test

Aug 28, 2014

Energy production systems are good examples of complex systems. Their infrastructure equipment requires ancillary sub-systems structured like a network—including water for cooling, transport to supply fuel, and ICT systems ...

Explainer: How does our sun shine?

Aug 28, 2014

What makes our sun shine has been a mystery for most of human history. Given our sun is a star and stars are suns, explaining the source of the sun's energy would help us understand why stars shine. ...

User comments : 717

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (6) Apr 14, 2012
We are developing a mathematical model where gravity is a result of the diminished energy density of a 3D quantum vacuum caused by the presence of a given stellar object or material body, - article

Isn't this already common knowledge among physicists?

Higher energy density = gravitational self energy (General Relativity) = more virtual particles (QM) = more scattering events per unit volume (QM) = lower light speed (QM) = more space (interpreted c = constant).

As for time... Isn't it the result of quantum mechanical entropy?
Why yes... it is....
Terriva
2.1 / 5 (14) Apr 14, 2012
..Our research confirms Gödel's vision: time is not a physical dimension of space through which one could travel into the past or future..
It's just an assumption of one of authors Amrit Sorli, who is recognized crackpot. General relativity describes the universe under a system of field equations, and there exist solutions to these equations that permit what are called "closed time-like curves," and hence time travel into the past. The first of these was proposed just by Kurt Gödel, a solution known as the Gödel metric, but his (and many others') example requires the universe to have physical characteristics that it does not appear to have. So it it's not true, Gödel's vision prohibited the time travel, but exactly the opposite: he just developed a relativity based solution, which explicitly does allow it.
onlinementor
2.1 / 5 (11) Apr 14, 2012
@Vendicar - You said "As for time... Isn't it the result of quantum mechanical entropy?
Why yes... it is...."

Time is man made. It is the result of an idea, not a physical process. Quantum theory is based on time. That's why it's a bad idea. See Heisenberg Uncertainty PRINCIPLE and Zeno's Paradox. 1 comes before 2 in time, but 2=1 in space.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (35) Apr 14, 2012
Entropy is a epiphenomenon. Time is an a-priori intuition of mind so is not physical entity of itself. Time has never been discovered independently of its application.
Terriva
1.1 / 5 (9) Apr 14, 2012
For example, if the string theory would be correct, then we could travel in another dimensions, than just time - in this sense the time wouldn't be the only available dimension of space-time. Only one of ten-eleven dimensions of string theory is time-like.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (31) Apr 14, 2012
"We are developing a mathematical model where gravity is a result of the diminished energy density of a 3D quantum vacuum caused by the presence of a given stellar object or material body, - article"

Isn't this already common knowledge among physicists?

Higher energy density = gravitational self energy (General Relativity) = more virtual particles (QM) = more scattering events per unit volume (QM) = lower light speed (QM) = more space (interpreted c = constant). - VD


They said "DIMINISHED energy density" of "quantum vacuum" results in gravity.

The quantum vacuum energy would be the cosmological constant added by Einstein, which works to counter gravity, so less means more gravity. That an material body would cause less quantum vacuum energy, ......(?).
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (22) Apr 14, 2012
The test described seems rather simple to carry out. So why not do it and stop arguing about whether it might be the right notion or not?

Fact trumps theory every time.
Pressure2
2.8 / 5 (12) Apr 14, 2012
Time is a measurement of change. Since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light it could also be said that no change can happen faster than the speed of light. This could explain why time to slows down as speed is increased until at the speed of light there is no time left for change. Time appears to stop.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (29) Apr 14, 2012
When the platform is moved horizontally at a high speed, then according to the length contraction phenomenon in 4D spacetime, clock A should shrink so that its photon has a shorter path to travel, causing it to tick faster than clock B.

... the length contraction of clock A and subsequent difference in the ticking rates of clocks A and B do not agree with special relativity


This isn't quite right. Length contraction, a component of SR, must occur because both clocks tick at the same rate. Clock A must 'catch up to' the receding mirror in direction of travel, so without length contraction clock A would tick slower than clock B.
randomwalk_
4.5 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2012
..Our research confirms Gödel's vision: time is not a physical dimension of space through which one could travel into the past or future..
It's just an assumption of one of authors..


It's in fact a complete misrepresentation.
Gödel said in his solution of Einsteins field equations of gravitation:

"...But there also exist closed time-like lines....; i.e., it is theoretically possible in these worlds to travel into the past, or otherwise influence the past."

which would imply closed causal loops or branching.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) Apr 14, 2012
The test described seems rather simple to carry out
The light clock constructed in the above described way doesn't exist from good reason.
muha
2.7 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2012
Time is a direction of 4D space to which laws works.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (31) Apr 14, 2012
The rate of photon clocks in faster inertial systems will not slow down with regard to the photon clocks in a rest inertial system because the speed of light is constant in all inertial systems


Wrong. That is in fact why the moving photon clocks WILL slow down. From the perspective of an observer not with the moving clocks, clock B takes a saw tooth path through space, so its light travels a longer distance than that observed from one riding along with clock B. From the observers perspective moving with the clock, he is at rest.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (28) Apr 14, 2012
'time dilatation' does not require 'length contraction,' which as we show in our paper leads to a contradiction by the light clocks differently positioned in a moving inertial system.


There is no contradiction at all. A velocity vector of the clocks only comes about because of the perspective of an observer, not moving with the clocks. This velocity vector direction has an effect on the path taken by the light, from the perspective of an observer not moving with the clocks.

No one said "time dilatation requires length contraction". If you only had clock B, you would not require length contraction, but there would still be time dilation. Length contraction comes about due to the non-moving observers determination of reletive direction and orientation of the clocks.
Bowler_4007
2.3 / 5 (13) Apr 14, 2012
i don't know about anyone else but i always thought of time as a temporal dimension not a spacial dimension, it of course does not make sense to think of space as 4D as we do not know of a 4th degree of freedom, time is not a 4th degree of freedom because we can only travel through time in one direction
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (34) Apr 14, 2012
i don't know about anyone else but i always thought of time as a temporal dimension not a spacial dimension, it of course does not make sense to think of space as 4D as we do not know of a 4th degree of freedom, time is not a 4th degree of freedom because we can only travel through time in one direction


But, we can travel at different "speeds" through time; A stationary person is moving at the "speed" of light in time, and if he starts moving in space, he "takes away" from his speed in time, resulting in time dilation.

This is analogous to how the component velocity in the north direction is reduced by traveling some in the east direction.
ZachAdams
Apr 14, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
philip_starkey
4.5 / 5 (15) Apr 14, 2012
Physics Essays is a known crackpot journal...The quality of PhysOrg has really fallen recently :(

Maybe PhysOrg should stick to writing articles on papers published in Nature, Science, and Physical Review letters/A/B/C/etc.
vacuum-mechanics
1.1 / 5 (14) Apr 14, 2012
By the way, one weak point of conventional time dilation in STR seems to be that it cannot explain how and why time itself could be dilated. By improving STR as below, the problem may be solved!

http://www.vacuum...mid=6=en
Smellyhat
4.2 / 5 (9) Apr 14, 2012
Lisa,

"Physics Essays" is an 'alternative science' journal. These men are not scientists of the sort that your readers might presume them to be. Whether or not their speculations are worth reporting about, you have not done enough to clarify the context of their work.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (11) Apr 14, 2012
Time is a measurement of change. Since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light it could also be said that no change can happen faster than the speed of light. This could explain why time to slows down as speed is increased until at the speed of light there is no time left for change. Time appears to stop.

When you have two objects both moving at the speed of light in opposite directions, you have change at twice the speed of light.
Rww
1 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2012
Has anyone read Paul Marmet? He argues the speed of light is a constant of integration. Explains the whole thing in terms of Classical Mechanics. Has experimental proof the back him up.
Smashin_Z_1885
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 15, 2012
I have been arguing this point for years now. It's actually quite impressive that someone else has FINALLY figured out that 'time' is nothing more than an abstract idea, and does not exist in reality (as we think of it). Sure, 'rate of change' can be measured, but this varies greatly from one thing to the next. Further, "c", as they will eventually figure out, is not constant at all, thereby rendering that idea false as well. Of course, realizing any of this is only a tiny fraction of the rest of it, so keep working on it!
Smashin_Z_1885
1 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2012
Now, after you consider these points, and figure out the reasoning and logical reductions of the processes involved, drop me a line and give me your explanation or theories of what we define as the 'threshold'. If you are familiar with quantum mechanics, you should understand the implications of such. If not, well, I am not permitted to share too many hints as doing so could easily ruin the connection here.
Smashin_Z_1885
1.3 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2012
The Paul Marmet argument is incorrect. Keep trying. Consider; His proof is circular in it's reasoning, and constants of integration, while moderately complex, are based (still!) on false mathematical assumptions. This is the base for all of the faulty calculations of the past.. . Assumptions assumed to be true. . Wrong! Delve deeper, is the advice.
Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 15, 2012
Lisa Zyga, you've got the greatest articles. NewScientist on. Time is as much a part of reality as any kindof physical aspect of reality (such as physical dimensions), there is one constant, change, reality always changes with time, the things we witness(the stuff we perceive as 3D) change, if anything more dimensions should be added, time is a physical gradient of change, what was isn't. Our theory of relativity is based on visualizations, we reduce reality to produce images that are accessible from all spacial directions (or 3D). Closing the dimensions at 4D is minimalist reasoning, therefore very generalized. It is absolutely perfect because it doesn't include all known aspects of reality but it assumes all probable by giving the visual (sensory interpretative 3D) and the known potential to change (plus 1D the time derivative). I don't like generalizations and approximations through calculations as it excludes the complex variables which present themselves in small quantities.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (4) Apr 15, 2012
So they want to separate an emergent property (spacetime) of Mass (or equiv energy), so as to have distinct sub-entities in and of themselves.

Hmm .. they may as well go try separate electro-magnetism next.
McQ
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 15, 2012
"We are developing a mathematical model where gravity is a result of the diminished energy density of a 3D quantum vacuum caused by the presence of a given stellar object or material body, - article"

Isn't this already common knowledge among physicis


They said "DIMINISHED energy density" of "quantum vacuum" results in gravity.

The quantum vacuum energy would be the cosmological constant added by Einstein, which works to counter gravity, so less means more gravity. That an material body would cause less quantum vacuum energy, ......(?).


Beautiful! Been arguing this for years.

That "energy density" is the "dark energy" they have used to patch current theory to match observations. And gravity is also the same force, pushing from everywhere. The pull comes from diminished gravity, not from some circular reasoning "gravity well".

And if we could make a nano-material transparent to this force from one direction, we´d have free energy and could travel to the stars.
Bookbinder
1.5 / 5 (6) Apr 15, 2012
Time ain't what a clock says. THE Time is what a clock says.
Code_Warrior
2.3 / 5 (4) Apr 15, 2012
I have a hard time with time. I see time as a comparison of the changes between 2 parts of the universe. One part is a device that changes a number of times. The other part is the phenomenon being measured. If our device has a much greater number of changes than the phenomenon being measured, it seems reasonable to say that the phenomenon changed by an amount Y in X device changes. I see no way to measure rates of change without such comparisons. Thus, I see time as a man made comparison. To me, going back in time requires reversal of all events in the universe to restore it to a state indistinguishable from that of the destination time in the past. However, the event that triggers the reversal can only propagate at c, requiring 13 billion years for the reversal to propagate everywhere in the universe. Seems unreasonable. Even more unreasonable is the idea that past copies of the universe exist in perpetuity on an absolute dimension of t through which we can move.
Egleton
1 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2012
We are being pulled into the future. We have confused cause and effect.
The golf ball doesn't fly straight because you hit it square. It flies straight therefore you hit it square.
(But in my case it doesn't fly straight)
CardacianNeverid
3.9 / 5 (9) Apr 15, 2012
Physics Essays is a known crackpot journal...The quality of PhysOrg has really fallen recently -philip_starkey

That explains it. I'd wondered why they didn't publish in a well known physics journal such as Physical Review Letters, especially given the magnitude of the claim.

Also, while reading through the article it felt like a semantic argument at best, especially with comments like -

The definition of time as a numerical order of change in space is replacing the 106-year-old concept of time as a physical dimension in which change runs

Just what difference will the new 'formulation' bring to physics? How will it tangibly change or advance anything?
Terriva
1.1 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2012
The definition of time as a numerical order of change in space is replacing the 106-year-old concept of time

Such a definition of time is apparently qualitative only and for the quantification of time you would need to express the FREQUENCY of changes, which is what the old definition of time would be very useful. After all, nobody prohibits anyone to define time accordingly to suit particular needs, the radiative time arrow used in relativity is only one of many definitions of time...

that someone else has FINALLY figured out that 'time' is nothing more than an abstract idea, and does not exist in reality
The charge of magnetic field intensity are sorta abstract concepts only. For example, what else the space is, than the time required for light to travel between different places of it? The bats are using such a definition of space, because they're navigating with longitudinal waves, not transverse ones.
Terriva
1.1 / 5 (9) Apr 15, 2012
Sorli and Fiscaletti argue that the length contraction of clock A and subsequent difference in the ticking rates of clocks A and B do not agree with special relativity, which postulates that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames
Before some time I made the animation, which models the whole experiment with ripples at the water surface and the speed of clock is really independent to the orientation of the clocks in accordance to relativity. The animation makes clear why is it so, but it runs in MS browsers only (animation, AVI video grabbed from it)
perrycomo
1.6 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2012
There are indivisible particles according to QM. There is only one photon as minimum and not a half photon . Why should there not be a quantum of time . The time that passes for the smallest minimal change of the state of a particle is a quantum of time . Yo cannot divide one quantum of time . So there has to be a relation between the speed of light and a quantum of time . Does an atom jiggle and wiggle analog or is there a minimal quantum of change of his state in a quantum of time ? When there is no change then time does not exist .
Terriva
1.1 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2012
.. Why should there not be a quantum of time ...
Did you read about Planck time?
Glyndwr
1.3 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2012
Physics Essays is a known crackpot journal...The quality of PhysOrg has really fallen recently :(

Maybe PhysOrg should stick to writing articles on papers published in Nature, Science, and Physical Review letters/A/B/C/etc.


Though Nature has had complaints about being dogmatic in respects to some research areas
Rww
1 / 5 (4) Apr 15, 2012
Has anyone read Paul Mermet? He argues the speed of light is a constant of an integration. Explains the whole thing in terms of classical mechanics and experimental evidence.
brodix
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2012
A big part of the problem is we model time as a series of events from past to future, along which the present moves, but its actual manifestation is the changing configuration of the present turning future into past. The earth doesn't travel some fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. It is a bit like trying to explain why the sun moves across the sky from east to west, before the realization that it was the earth spinning west to east.
That cat is not both dead and alive, because it is the actual occurrence of events which determines its fate, not positions on some theoretical timeline. The collapse of probabilities into particular circumstances; The future becoming the past, not movement along a vector from past to future.
Time emerges from action, rather than is the basis for it.
NMvoiceofreason
2.8 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2012
Time is a virtual dimension, nothing more than the derivative of a force applied to a distance. The distance is always positive, regardless of the number of dimensions. The force is always positive (strong, weak, EM, gravity). I concur with Sorli and Fiscaletti.

Subjective experience of time is a mental illusion. At the quantum level, only entanglements caused by forces can produce change. Without change there is no time. Since the distance formula is always positive, there is no possibility of time travel.

We don't live in 4D Minkowski space. We live in nD (presumably 10D) space with virtual time (or derivative time). Even Kaluza-Klein knew this to be true.
Terriva
1.3 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2012
We don't live in 4D Minkowski space.
This is all nice - but it doesn't explain, why just 4D Minkowski metric describes so well the general relativity, which is supported with experiments so well... A coincidence?
Claudius
2.5 / 5 (11) Apr 15, 2012
This illustrates science's limitations. Sure, we can measure things, give them names, model them mathematically and come up with theories to explain observations. But can we explain what time is? Or what energy or mass are? Measurement and modeling can only take you so far, after which you are only left with philosophy, which can only speculate. The whole thing is intractable.
Terriva
1 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2012
Who is "we"? Pluralis majesticus or sudden manifestation of schizophrenia attack? For example, I'm explaining the time dimension like the compactified space dimension all the time here. This model explains the geodesics as a Hamiltonian flow: the massive objects travel through space-time in similar way, like the light through density gradient.
Terriva
1 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2012
The primary mistake of people is, they're considering, the Universe must have beginning or end, because we people indeed have some beginning and end too. This subconscious anthropomorphism is very apparent here (the "birth of the Universe" and "death of the Universe" are commonly used phrases of scientific journalism). But would such an assumption help us with something? Of course not, it just introduces another questions, which are even more difficult to answer. The another mistake is the belief, the natural state of Universe is the empty void space or "nothingness". Why our Universe should be naturally homogeneous and flat like the mirror? Why it should differ from existing Universe after all? Occam's razor criterion is very powerful: if you needn't to introduce some assumption for anything, don't assume it. Not to say, if such assumption just brings more questions than answers.
rwinners
1.2 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2012
When all of the particles that make up matter cease to have energy, that is, when they cease any movement, then time will be immeasurable. Until that condition exists, time will out.
I won't get into the argument concerning other universes, or even the size of our own.
MrVibrating
1.8 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2012
To all those (including the authors) who say time is but the metric of change, in what domain is that change occuring? Is this not mistaking the map for the territory?

And if this view is correct, does this not mean time is finite - that just as it began with the universe's birth, so it will end with its ultimate heat death - at some point everything will be at equillibrium and nothing will change anymore.. no more events, thus no more time?

But what then of the quantum vacuum - isn't it supposed to 'fizz' through time, or would this field cease to have relevence in the absence of thermodynamic activity?

I must say i'm more drawn to the idea of time as external to what we think of as our universe, a more fundamental substrate common to all universes, in an M-theory kinda way... and ditto the vacuum...
Tachyon8491
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 15, 2012
This evidences a paradigm shift, revolutionary insight. Of course, as in all such shifts, there are those who will glue themselves to obsolescent tenets with nail-biting tenacity and become almost religious in their defense of the indefensible... Like Godel, whose rigorous thinking was pragmatically scientific but intuitively guided, I long felt that this new perception of time is correct. More than this - it opens up entirely new possiblities in the physics of causal evolutions (things as processes)
Brainooze
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 15, 2012
Time is not a natural phenomenon, but is a mental construct of man. However, motion, which is related to time, is a natural phenomenon. Thus, motion is the fourth dimension that integrates the three below it, which are length, width, and depth. It's elementary, my dear Dr. Watson, elementary.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (6) Apr 15, 2012
It would be helpful if those seeking to vanquish time from physics, knew how special relativity worked.

Oh well...
brodix
1 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2012
It would be helpful if those seeking to vanquish time from physics, knew how special relativity worked.


It works as correlation, but does it work as causation?
Epicycles worked mathematically, but not physically. The patterns can be modeled, but does that mean the cause ascribed is valid? Can we travel wormholes through warped spacetime, or is that as fantastical as the planets and stars mounted on giant cosmic gearwheels?
hyongx
1 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2012
Time is not a natural phenomenon, but is a mental construct of man.


This is how i feel right now. What is my time doing
Uncle_Ivan
1 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2012
@ Vendicar: I take it that your comment is directed solely at Sorli and Fiscaletti, and not at anyone else posting their doubt as to the nature of time?

I personally do not believe in the existence of time, in and of itself, as much as I believe it to be a way for us to measure motion. So, I don't so much vanquish the idea of "time" completely from the equation, as view it from a more utilitarian perspective. IMHO, Sorli and Fiscaletti are no different than others who believe in the palpable existence of time, i.e. they begin their hypothesis with a false assumption, and therefore it is incorrect.
Argiod
1 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2012
I think of Time as the zero'th dimension. It has no length, no height, no depth; yet, it is the matrix of duration needed existence to be experienced subjectively.
Argiod
1 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2012
I look at Time as the Zero'th dimension.
It has no length, no height, no depth.
It is the Matrix of Duration required to experience existence. It was spoken of in ancient times as the circle whose center is everywhere, and whose circumference is nowhere.
Argiod
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2012
Sorry for the double post. It gave no indication of registering until after the third post; which I'm turning into this apology.
Schaps
1.2 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2012
The term "dimensions", as with all other descriptors of the so called "realities" that are construed by those philosophers who call themselves "physicists" - are merely imaginative fragments which they grasp in desperate, futile attempts to achieve a modicum of comfort and reassurance that all is "sensible and meaningfull" within their world.. Abolish "time" if they so choose - another quandary will arise to take its place within a very short time thereafter!!
CardacianNeverid
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2012
This illustrates science's limitations -YouClaudius

Sure, science has limitations. That's not new.

Measurement and modeling can only take you so far, after which you are only left with philosophy, which can only speculate. The whole thing is intractable -YouClaudius

So what is your brilliant alternative to the scientific method?
CardacianNeverid
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2012
Epicycles worked mathematically, but not physically -CylinderHead

No, they neither worked mathematically nor physically, which is why they were dumped.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2012
This evidences a paradigm shift, revolutionary insight.


They are trying to resurrect the model championed by St Augustine of Hippo, and it wasn't original then! Hardly "revolutionary", just a couple of presentists trying to salvage their ancient philosophy against the evidence.
Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 16, 2012
Time flows at lightspeed, never faster, never slower. When a body uses internal energy to move through external space the internal speed is lost while the external speed is gained. When a body moves through space at 50% lightspeed internally it evolves at 50% lightspeed. When a body travels at 100% lightspeed externally, internally it evolves at 0% lightspeed. In other words an object travelling at the speed of light doesn't age, time does not evolve internally when 100% of the systems energy is utilized externally.

Time is evolution. Energy is required for systems to evolve. A stationary atom evolves internally at the speed of light. An atom is frozen in time internally when it transitions through space at light speed.

It comes down to total energy availability of the system. You could label the external as kinetic and internal as potential, when potential is fulfilled all is kinetic, a system without potential doesn't evolve. Respectfully, Hamiltonian.
ewj
1 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2012
Sirs, The universe in our experience exists as 4 real dimensions ut, x, y, z temporal time which is not a spatial dimension. Ut is a time symmetrical Primary dimension which is creating NEW SPACE
second for second since the so called big bang. It also determines the speed of light - as light can only move into a dimension - it cannot move without a dimension! The speed at which new Ut space is being created just so happens to be approx 300,000kms. It is also responsible for the association and dissociation of atomic standard model interactive cohesion. The book published via Amazon books called Absolute Relativity - theory of everything explains all this. Explained in a very easy to read text with illustrations. The real dimensions are ut,x,y,z. Ut is the Primary dimension into which can exist Euclids x,y,z. It has an orthogonal expanding velocity with a time symmetry of '0'. The concept of space-time and Spacetime has long been confused- the book unravels the mystery
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (28) Apr 16, 2012
Determining the number of cycles of one event to the number of cycles of another event is what we call time,... the motivation for doing so is merely an intuitive means of ordering experience, and so is mind dependent.

However, It is perfectly valid, IMO, to use "time" in physics if one understands it as a conceptual relation between events and not a discoverable physical entity of itself.

However^2, the lesson of qm was that progress in physics was made by abandoning the notion of forcing reality to conform to a-priori intuitive concepts.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (27) Apr 16, 2012
,... general relativity is considered a "classical" theory. In order to reconcile it with qm it may be necessary to abondon some of it's presumed intuitive (classical) concepts, so analyzing "time" and finding a more physical definition IS valid, but I think the authors made some mistakes, as I (& VD) pointed out above.
CardacianNeverid
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2012
However, It is perfectly valid, IMO, to use "time" in physics if one understands it as a conceptual relation between events and not a discoverable physical entity of itself -Noumenon

So time is an emergent property? How do you square that with relativity?
alfie_null
not rated yet Apr 16, 2012
...The quality of PhysOrg has really fallen recently :(

If the metric is the amount of response generated, this was a good pick.
Tachyon8491
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2012
As Godel, Bergson, and Popper well understood, all epistemology is approximation to a more ultimate reality. When a model evinces repeatable experimental proof it may be regarded as a "Concordant subset" of such ultimate reality, with the proviso that it is STILL an approximation. The same is true for time. Paradox is the essential prime dynamic and attribute of ontology - it is intrinsic to processing by consciousness, which is what all perception and its resulting modelling is about. The quantum ground is "empty" yet it isn't, boundaries define finiteness yet imply an "after," particles are unitary, yet they aren't. The scientistic perception reductionistcally reduces consciousness to an epiphenomenal, emergent property of ontological complexity, instead of seeing cosmogonic physicalisation as the result of consciousness directing informed energies. Bohm understood this in his addition of the quantum potential term to the schrodinger equation. Consciousness, causality and time -
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2012
Time is evolution. Energy is required for systems to evolve. A stationary atom evolves internally at the speed of light.


Then an atom should lose energy simply by existing. It doesn't.

Tachyon8491
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2012
Consciousness, causality, matter-energy complexes and time are facets of a Great Synthesis - the irreducible prime underpinning them is consciousness.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (27) Apr 16, 2012
However, It is perfectly valid, IMO, to use "time" in physics if one understands it as a conceptual relation between events and not a discoverable physical entity of itself -Noumenon

So time is an emergent property? How do you square that with relativity?


As I said above, what we call time is our comparison (ratio) of the number of cycles of one event to that of another. Thats it. This ratio changes in the presence of mass-energy.

In this sense, time is simply a relation between events and not a fundamental existent entity. Nature herself does not care about such a comparison,... that is to say there is no discoverable "time particle". Time is Applied in relating things, not Discovered. The same goes for space (and possibly causality.)

We add the conceptual structure to support of knowledge of phenomenal reality. The lesson of qm was to not confuse the two, and presume that Reality, as it is unconceptualized, still abides by our a-priori intuitions.
Fleetfoot
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2012
Anyone who wants to try to treat time as merely emergent will have to fidna way to explain the observations of Hulse and Taylor:

http://en.wikiped...913%2B16

"The total power of the gravitational radiation (waves) emitted by this system presently, is calculated to be 7.35 × 10^24 watts. For comparison, this is 1.9% of the power radiated in light by our own Sun."

For those who don't understand the significance, gravitational waves can be crudely described as "ripples of time". For time alone to carry away energy implies it has some physical reality.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (27) Apr 16, 2012
For those who don't understand the significance, gravitational waves can be crudely described as "ripples of time". For time alone to carry away energy implies it has some physical reality.


It does no such thing. It implies that the ratio between the number of cycles of one event compared to that of an observers event changes by some physical effect (gravatational wave). That is all.

[I'll look that link over when I have time in more detail though]
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2012
For those who don't understand the significance, gravitational waves can be crudely described as "ripples of time". For time alone to carry away energy implies it has some physical reality.


It does no such thing. It implies that the ratio between the number of cycles of one event compared to that of an observers event changes by some physical effect (gravatational wave). That is all.

[I'll look that link over when I have time in more detail though]


You may find this interesting as well:

http://en.wikiped...al_waves

Gravitational wave recoil is quite a recent discovery in black hole merger simulations and will be very difficult to confirm, but for any wave/particle moving at the speed of light, the momentum is equal to the energy so would be expected. The Hulse and Taylor observation is currently the best confirmed data.
Ryan1981
1 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2012
[quote]What is Time

Time is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. It is there when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. It is there when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes. It is the concept that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

You are a slave. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind.[/quote]

By defining time, you are defining your own prison. And though we know for a fact that time has a beginning and an end for us in the physical world (born and death), who really knows what else is out there?
TS1
1 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2012
Where does this idea come from that a "clock" is somehow tied to "time"?

Just because an atomic clock operates faster at a higher altitude does not mean that it is because of time. It could have something to do with gravitation, for example. Or, considering the small amounts of difference we could have measurement errors.

Then there is this idea proposed in some book somewhere, that if you move away from a wall clock at the speed of light, you could (in a thought experiment) see the photons from the clock (which would show you the same time continually) and that this would "prove" that "time stands still" when you move at the speed of light.

The problem with this idea is, however, that time does NOT stand still when you move at the speed of light. How do we know this? Because it would still take you 1 whole year to move the distance of a light year. If time actually stood still you would traverse that 1 light year distance instantly.
casualjoe
1 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2012
So, continuing in the mindset of the article, by viewing time this way, could we imply that the universe is not expanding but instead, the allowable rate of space is decreasing? This would still agree with our observations of redshift over great distances.

Joe

BoxPopuli
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2012
Amrit Sorli is a crackpot and Physics Essays is a fringe journal.
Amrit claims that time dilation is a function of the direction of motion (more dilation "horizontally" than "vertically"). By contrast, special relativity SHOWS that time dilation, as opposed to length contraction is NOT direction dependent. Even beginners know that, someone needs to tell that to Sorli and to the reviewers at Physics Essays.
Fleetfoot
4 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2012
Where does this idea come from that a "clock" is somehow tied to "time"?


From the basic concept of science, that it relates to measurables. The definition of time is "that which a clock measures". Anything else is philosophy.
Deathclock
1.8 / 5 (11) Apr 16, 2012
Physics Essays is a known crackpot journal...The quality of PhysOrg has really fallen recently :(

Maybe PhysOrg should stick to writing articles on papers published in Nature, Science, and Physical Review letters/A/B/C/etc.


Maybe we should just have a good old fashioned book burning to do away with ideas we don't like?
BoxPopuli
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2012
Amrit Sorli is a crank. Contrary to his crank claims, time dilation is not direction dependent, even freshmen know that. Someone needs to tell that to him, the reviewers at the fringe journal Physics Essays and to Lisa Zynga.
Job001
1 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2012
The common error is to ignore man, the observer of events. Man and things exist and we model, events we define. We make sense of events by structuring them sequentially. The prior events we term past, this one is we term now, and the projected events we term future. Events may exist "out there", time does not. Likewise the distance between things is a nothing thing (where nothing is) measurable only by comparison to a standard ruler thing. Time and dimension are imaginary nothing things and are not "out there".
TS1
2 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2012
Where does this idea come from that a "clock" is somehow tied to "time"?


From the basic concept of science, that it relates to measurables. The definition of time is "that which a clock measures". Anything else is philosophy.


Of course, but that is not what I was referring to. My point was that a clock is not somehow magically connected to a physical "time". Or otherwise I could take a car engine, add a contraption with some gears and pointers to it, and ta-daa, have a clock that is connected to "time".

My reason for that question was that just because a clock moves faster or slower does not mean that it is because of some change in its relation to "time". This holds true whether we talk about an atom clock or an old analog clock or any other "clock" for that matter.
Deathclock
2 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2012
I don't know how you distinguish time from change... they appear to refer to the same thing.
Terriva
1 / 5 (9) Apr 16, 2012
Contrary to his crank claims, time dilation is not direction dependent, even freshmen know that.
You posted it already and Sorli knows about it quite well: if you would read this article, you would know, this difference just forms the basis of the experimental test of his theory. Before some time I realized similar thing, when I speculated about role of deBroglie wave in special relativity. In dense aether model this wave represents the wake wave around objects, moving along water surface. This wave would slow down the spreading of energy around object in such a way, the light speed would remain constant from perspective of external observer. This wake wave is oriented perpendicularly to the motion direction, so it shouldn't change the speed of energy in another directions.
TS1
2.4 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2012
Where does this idea come from that a "clock" is somehow tied to "time"?


From the basic concept of science, that it relates to measurables. The definition of time is "that which a clock measures". Anything else is philosophy.


Of course, but that is not what I was referring to. My point was that a clock is not somehow magically connected to a physical "time". Or otherwise I could take a car engine, add a contraption with some gears and pointers to it, and ta-daa, have a clock that is connected to "time".

My reason for that question was that just because a clock moves faster or slower does not mean that it is because of some change in its relation to "time". This holds true whether we talk about an atom clock or an old analog clock or any other "clock" for that matter.
Deathclock
1 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2012
My reason for that question was that just because a clock moves faster or slower does not mean that it is because of some change in its relation to "time". This holds true whether we talk about an atom clock or an old analog clock or any other "clock" for that matter.


Agreed, and believe it or not I have been saying this for a long time now... If a clock slows there is no way to distinguish the cause from a change in the rate of flow of some physical "time" (whatever that is) and a simple change in the rate of change of the mechanics of the clock.
brodix
2.4 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2012
Epicycles worked mathematically, but not physically -CylinderHead

No, they neither worked mathematically nor physically, which is why they were dumped.

The reason they didn't work with the degree of precision we expect today is because they were circular and not elliptical. For 2000 years ago, it was still pretty good math. One could presumably create a mathematically precise geocentric model of the universe, for the very obvious reason that we exist in one and math does attempt to model reality. It would just be more complicated than other descriptions and what resolves the best choice among competing models is Ockham's Razor; What is the most efficient model that explains all that is necessary. Relativity does offer an effective model, but it does raise some unexplained issues and doesn't resolve some others. We don't know whether a simpler and more effective model will come along to replace it, before it does. The future doesn't advertise.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 16, 2012
@CardacianNeverid

This illustrates science's limitations -YouClaudius

Sure, science has limitations. That's not new.

Measurement and modeling can only take you so far, after which you are only left with philosophy, which can only speculate. The whole thing is intractable -YouClaudius

So what is your brilliant alternative to the scientific method?


Hence the use of the word "intractable."

"This man, on one hand, believes that he knows something, while not knowing [anything]. On the other hand, I equally ignorant do not believe [that I know anything]." - Plato
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (10) Apr 16, 2012
Entropy is a epiphenomenon. Time is an a-priori intuition of mind so is not physical entity of itself. Time has never been discovered independently of its application.
I am sorry but I had to give you a 1 because I did not like the word 'epiphenomenon'. Try another one please. Something a little more ...congenial.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2012
My point was that a clock is not somehow magically connected to a physical "time". Or otherwise I could take a car engine, add a contraption with some gears and pointers to it, and ta-daa, have a clock that is connected to "time".


You can however add such a contraption and get an instrument that is "magically connected to a physical distance travelled", we call it an odometer.

Consider this diagram and I'll give three descriptions (it may take more than 1 post):

C
|\
| B
|/
A

A ballon rises from A to C being blown first east (to B) then west. A rocket is fired directly from A to C. When they are both at C, their altimeters show the same reading.

Two cars drive across a flat salt lake from A to C, the first travelling directly there going due north while the other detours east to go via B. When they are both at C, their odometers show the different readings.

(to be continued)
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2012
My point was that a clock is not somehow magically connected to a physical "time". Or otherwise I could take a car engine, add a contraption with some gears and pointers to it, and ta-daa, have a clock that is connected to "time".


(to be continued)


Two twins celebrate their birthday in the local hall in year A. One twin stays on Earth while the other vists Alpha Centauri in year B then returns to share a party in the hall in year C.

What observation tells us is that clocks on Earth and in the spaceship behave like odometers and the difference in their readings at C can be predicted using Pythagoras.

Now you could claim that odometers should really measure change of latitude but travelling east-west makes them inaccurate but few people would consider that credible. I don't see why we should take that approach with clocks but that is what Sorli and Fiscaletti are proposing.
Terriva
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 16, 2012
IMO what the Sorli and Fiscaletti are proposing is just a new version of Michelson-Morley experiment. If they're saying, the light in crossed arms of interferometer travels with different speed depending on their orientation toward axis of motion (because of different speed of time here) - then we can say safely, the experiment proposed by them was already found negative many times.
Deathclock
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2012
My point was that a clock is not somehow magically connected to a physical "time". Or otherwise I could take a car engine, add a contraption with some gears and pointers to it, and ta-daa, have a clock that is connected to "time".


(to be continued)


Two twins celebrate their birthday in the local hall in year A. One twin stays on Earth while the other vists Alpha Centauri in year B then returns to share a party in the hall in year C.

What observation tells us is that clocks on Earth and in the spaceship behave like odometers and the difference in their readings at C can be predicted using Pythagoras


So those traveling to AC and back have aged much less right? How do you know this? Because of the physical appearance of their bodies? Through radiometric dating? What does that actually tell you about the passage of "time" that they experienced versus the simple observation that their constituent material must have CHANGED more slowly?

Time = Change.

Fleetfoot
3 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2012
I don't know how you distinguish time from change... they appear to refer to the same thing.


Time is a measure of the rate at which change occurs, like the difference between energy and power, momentum and force.
Fleetfoot
4 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2012
Two twins celebrate their birthday in the local hall in year A. One twin stays on Earth while the other vists Alpha Centauri in year B then returns to share a party in the hall in year C.

What observation tells us is that clocks on Earth and in the spaceship behave like odometers and the difference in their readings at C can be predicted using Pythagoras


So those traveling to AC and back have aged much less right? How do you know this?

To B and back but yes.

Michelson Morely experiment.

Ives Stilwell experiment.

Because neutrons with a half life of 15 minutes hit our atmosphere even though they come from supernovae thousands of years ago.

The Hafele Keating experiment.

Every known physical measure of time behaves the same way and when you understand that it is in the nature of space time that clocks should work like odometers, no experiment has every contradicted that view.
Deathclock
1 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2012
I don't know how you distinguish time from change... they appear to refer to the same thing.


Time is a measure of the rate at which change occurs, like the difference between energy and power, momentum and force.


Right, so it's a measure, not a physical entity. That's what Sorli or whatever his name is is saying.
Fleetfoot
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2012
Right, so it's a measure, not a physical entity. That's what Sorli or whatever his name is is saying.


No. Augustine of Hippo argued that it was impious to consider that God could be omnipotent yet at any time have nothing over which to rule hence it was near blasphemous to imagine that time could have existed before he created the Earth etc.. The only way Augustine could reconcile that was to say time couldn't exist before matter, hence time must only be a description of the motion of created items. That is the philosophy Sorli et al are trying to reintroduce, they are saying it is not a measurement but an invention of our minds.

To do so (judging only from the above review), they apparently deny the result of numerous experiments (such as Michelson Morley as has been mentioned) and pretend the results were something other than they actually are.
Deathclock
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 16, 2012
Time is utterly defined by change, you cannot provide a definition of "time" that does not reference some observed change in the state of the universe. That tells me that they refer to the same thing.
Fleetfoot
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2012
That tells me that they refer to the same thing.


I'm afraid not. To work like an odometer, space and time must be similar in nature so that Pythagoras applies. If there is only space as they suggest, clocks could only measure in one way, like an instrument in a car registering latitude instead of mileage.

Odometers, altimeters and clocks are all instruments that measure something, we are not arguing about that. Note what they say:

"The rate of photon clocks in faster inertial systems will not slow down with regard to the photon clocks in a rest inertial system because the speed of light is constant in all inertial systems, the rate of atom clocks will slow down because the 'relativity' of physical phenomena starts at the scale of pi mesons."

In other words thay say a photon clock should work like an altimeter while an atom clock should work like an odometer. The reality is that they both behave identically. The M&M experiment is a 'photon clock'.
Terriva
1 / 5 (9) Apr 16, 2012
Right, so it's a measure, not a physical entity
In some theories (including the dense aether model) the time has multiple dimensions in the same way, like the space and we are living in two-dimensions of entropic time. http://phys.org/n...776.html
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2012
In some theories (including the dense aether model) ..


Another sock account Callippo? You know perfectly well there is no such thing as the "dense aether model" and sticking the phrase in front of a reference to a GR-based speculation doesn't gain you any credibility.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2012
What prohibits you to think about vacuum like about very dense particle gas? Absolutely nothing. Some others believe for example, the Universe is formed with interior of black hole and it's the similar stuff.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2012
The universe is not a black hole. We'd be seeing entirly different motions of stars and red-/blueshifts if we were inside one (also we'd have been spaghettified a long time ago)
More specifically we wouldn't be seeing ANYTHING in the direction of the singularity. What goes for the event horizon (no light beyond this point) goes doubly for any other point inside the event horizon.
Fleetfoot
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2012
What prohibits you to think about vacuum like about very dense particle gas?


Aether theory says that light is a wave in the substance. As I have told you several times before, and you would have known if you had studied aether theory, since light is polarised, it must be a transverse wave hence requires shear strength and a gas has none.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2012
The universe is not a black hole.


Don't take the bait, he's a notorious troll using the old "scattergun" technique. No matter how often you prove him wrong, he just changes the subject and can pretend you never replied.
Terriva
1 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2012
Aether theory says that light is a wave in the substance. As I have told you several times before, and you would have known if you had studied aether theory, since light is polarized, it must be a transverse wave hence requires shear strength and a gas has none.
Every particle environment spreads waves in two ways: longitudinal and transverse one. In sparse aether the later one is greatly diminished - which is why I introduced dense aether model (actually, Robert Hooke was first, who started to think about it). Apparently, modern physicists aren't even able to think in this way due their strong internal taboo or something...
The universe is not a black hole.
I didn't say it is. The dense aether model is more general and it doesn't attribute any particular outer geometry to the Universe. Nevertheless, the dispersion of light with vacuum fluctuations will lead to the FLRW metric, which corresponds the black hole inside out. FLRW metric is the basis of standard cosmology.
Terriva
1 / 5 (10) Apr 16, 2012
The universe is not a black hole. We'd be seeing entirly different motions of stars and red-/blueshifts if we were inside one
It apparently doesn't prohibit many physicists to make money in this way. You should tell them about it and ask the money of tax payers back...
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2012
Aether theory says that light is a wave in the substance. As I have told you several times before, and you would have known if you had studied aether theory, since light is polarized, it must be a transverse wave hence requires shear strength and a gas has none.
Every particle environment spreads waves in two ways: longitudinal and transverse one.


Correct, but light doesn't have any longitudinal component at all so it can't result from a conventional materialistic model. Well done, you found out one reason why aether theories don't work.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (30) Apr 16, 2012
Entropy is a epiphenomenon. Time is an a-priori intuition of mind so is not physical entity of itself. Time has never been discovered independently of its application.

I am sorry but I had to give you a 1 because I did not like the word 'epiphenomenon'. Try another one please. Something a little more ...congenial.


In the time you wrote that post you could have looked the word up.

I mean, entropy is "a secondary phenomenon accompanying another and caused by it",.... that is to say, it is not a primary or fundamental phenomena itself.
Terriva
1 / 5 (10) Apr 16, 2012
Correct, but light doesn't have any longitudinal component at all
In linearized, EinsteinMaxwell theory on flat spacetime, an oscillating electric dipole is the source of a spin-2 field

http://rspa.royal...987.full

Photons are solitons (wavepackets) of transverse and longitudinal waves in similar way, like the Russel's solitons at the water surface. If the light would be formed with pure harmonic waves, then the photons could be never formed in it. Do you see, how little do you understand the light?
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2012
Photons are the quantization and realization of transverse wave energy. Light is both wave and particle. Light as a wave is transverse. Photons as quantized particles travel longitudinally preserving wave max and min heights simultaneously (photons aren't waves but particles, the amplitude of the wave is the diameter of the photon. Photons don't trough or peak, they have longitudinal motion).

So when you speak of photons, they are longitudinal flow. When you speak of light waves you're speaking of transverse motion. But light is actually both in every moment. So light is both longitudinal and transverse wave simultaneously.
Deathclock
1.6 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2012
The universe is not a black hole. We'd be seeing entirly different motions of stars and red-/blueshifts if we were inside one (also we'd have been spaghettified a long time ago)
More specifically we wouldn't be seeing ANYTHING in the direction of the singularity.


I've spoken with an astrophysicist who would disagree.

Did you know a "black hole" does not have to have anything at the center? The shared center of mass of a system of densely packed stars could be the center of a black hole, in empty space. The density of such a cluster of massive stars could satisfy the conditions necessary of a black hole who's schwarzschild radius would fully encompass the cluster of stars, yet their shared center of gravity would fall in empty space. Everything entering the schwarzschild radius of such a system would "fall" into the system, possibly forming stable orbits around one of the component stars. Nothing has to be "spaghettified" at all.
Deathclock
1 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2012
You're one of the most insightful posters here AA so don't take offense when I tell you that, after speaking with a couple actual astrophysicists, you could stand to brush up on your cosmology.
brodix
1.2 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2012
Time is a measure of the rate at which change occurs, like the difference between energy and power, momentum and force.

Time is a measure of change, but what is space is a measure of? Distance, area and volume are measures of space, but it would seem space is what is being measured, not the measure of something more fundamental.
Time, on the other hand, is a measure of something more fundamental; Change. And change is an effect of action. Temperature is another measure, scalar, of action. We could use ideal gas laws to argue temperature is another parameter of volume, just as we use the speed of light to correlate distance and duration to say "space" and time are interchangeable, so why is there no "temperaturespace?" Given that space is considered to be filled with quantum fluctuations, which presumes some form of temperature, it would seem as foundational as "spacetime."
We know temperature is a measure and don't treat it as some foundational geometry, like we do with time.
Write4U
1 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2012
Time is a measurement of change. Since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light it could also be said that no change can happen faster than the speed of light. This could explain why time to slows down as speed is increased until at the speed of light there is no time left for change. Time appears to stop.

I agree.
IMO time is a RESULT of change (any change). Without change time is not "needed". Even a quantum event "requires" and creates time.

Write4U
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2012
Photons are the quantization and realization of transverse wave energy. Light is both wave and particle. Light as a wave is transverse. Photons as quantized particles travel longitudinally preserving wave max and min heights simultaneously (photons aren't waves but particles, the amplitude of the wave is the diameter of the photon. Photons don't trough or peak, they have longitudinal motion).

So when you speak of photons, they are longitudinal flow. When you speak of light waves you're speaking of transverse motion. But light is actually both in every moment. So light is both longitudinal and transverse wave simultaneously.


IMO, light is not "a photon", it is a series of energetic quanta which propagate with a wavelike function. They only become instantiated as particles when interacting with another object (collapse of the wave function).
Chakir_Abdi
1 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2012
The rate of photon clocks in faster inertial systems will not slow down with regard to the photon clocks in a rest inertial system because the speed of light is constant in all inertial systems, he said. The rate of atom clocks will slow down because the 'relativity' of physical phenomena starts at the scale of pi mesons.

You still need to produce those photons. You will need to excite something to produce those photons and, if you are using particles with mass your clock, regardless made of atoms or photons, will slow down anyway.

YawningDog
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2012
As I read through the comments I had the distinct feeling that I was listening to a bunch of blind men trying to describe an elephant.
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 17, 2012
Terriva
Who is "we"?


Not WE.
Zephir.
Terriva is Yet Another Zephir Sockpuppet.

Time is property of the Universe just as space is. They make up space-time. Amrit is wrong as usual. He keeps getting this utter crap on here somehow. He has posted here and was exceedingly inept at backing up his silly philosophy.

When asked what his philosophy does for science his answer is always:
Time is a measurement of change.


Which has no meaning in terms of actually doing science. Even if he was right there is not a single change in the way science would actually be done. No equation would change unless to make it make more awkward and everything would still be time-like and not change like.

As someone else said here in Amrit's view time stops for a frozen chicken.

Ethelred
Fleetfoot
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 17, 2012
Correct, but light doesn't have any longitudinal component at all
In linearized, EinsteinMaxwell theory on flat spacetime, an oscillating electric dipole is the source of a spin-2 field

http://rspa.royal...987.full

Photons are solitons (wavepackets) of transverse and longitudinal waves in similar way, like the Russel's solitons at the water surface. If the light would be formed with pure harmonic waves, then the photons could be never formed in it.


Gravitational waves are transverse quadrupole

Do you see, how little do you understand the light?


I see you have no clue what the articles you cite are actually saying.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2012
I've spoken with an astrophysicist who would disagree.


Who? Let's see his credentials.

Did you know a "black hole" does not have to have anything at the center? The shared center of mass of a system of densely packed stars could be the center of a black hole, in empty space.


No it couldn't, anything getting closer than the event horizon reaches the centre in finite proper time.

The density of such a cluster of massive stars could satisfy the conditions necessary of a black hole who's schwarzschild radius would fully encompass the cluster of stars, yet their shared center of gravity would fall in empty space. Everything entering the schwarzschild radius of such a system would "fall" into the system, possibly forming stable orbits around one of the component stars.


There are no stable orbits inside r=3m, the event horizon is at r=2m.
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 17, 2012
Time is utterly defined by change


Change is utterly defined by time.

Which tells me that time is a property of the Universe.

All attempts to replace time with change, and Amrit tried doing that in posts here, turned out to have a timelike nature. Even when he tried to hide it by using an equation that had a variable that was timelike but he just intentionally left out what the variables actually stood for. In other words he tried to run a bluff and hoped that no would check what the variables really were.

Which means he knew he was trying to con us.

Ethelred
Spazz
1 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2012
I wrote a formula for time in a mathematical equation and it got censored by my local press. When I submitted it to Nature, it was deleted in its entirety as a submission. Then I re-submitted it- the entire account used to submit was deleted.
So, I guess it's wrong.

But what they're saying here is not 100% sensible to me.
Terriva
1 / 5 (9) Apr 17, 2012
Gravitational waves are transverse quadrupole
I didn't talk about gravitational waves at all. These quadruple waves cannot exist, as Eddington pointed out already before many years (and we really never detected them). Gravitational waves do not have a unique speed of propagation, the speed of the alleged waves is coordinate dependent. A different set of coordinates yields a different speed of propagation and such waves would propagate like noise. In dense aether model the CMBR noise is actually manifestation of gravitational waves in similar way, like the longitudinal sound waves would manifest with noise at the water surface.

Gravitational waves are based on the Einstein's pseudo-tensor. However, Hermann Weyl proved in 1944 already, that linearisation of the field equations implies the existence of a Einstein's pseudo-tensor that, except for the trivial case of being precisely zero, does not otherwise exist:

http://www.jstor..../2371768
Terriva
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 17, 2012
All attempts to replace time with change, and Amrit tried doing that in posts here, turned out to have a timelike nature.
Of course, it's merely a semantic redefinition of well established term, which is furthermore completely vague. In addition, it has nothing to do with experiment, recommend for its support.
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 17, 2012
Gravitational waves do not have a unique speed of propagation, the speed of the alleged waves is coordinate dependent.
No they travel at C. Considering that you think gravity is a push force dependent on paricles that travel at many times the speed of light which would generate heat I can't take anything you have to say about gravity as having any meaning.

Next up:
So you didn't like me outing you again Zephir? Too bad. On the profile of your other new sockpuppet, TkClick, you claim to be female. So much for you not trying to disguise you sockpuppets.

TkClick

First Name: Jenny

Last Name: Reefstone

Username: TkClick

Your real is not Jenny. Since you insisted on lying like that here is your name.

Milan Petrik

And a photo of you can be seen on this site you own.
http://petrik.big...ovky.cz/

Ethelred
Terriva
1 / 5 (9) Apr 17, 2012
Since you insisted on lying like that here is your name
LOL, my real name is nowhere on the web, photo the less...;-) BTW You're off-topic here.
you think gravity is a push force dependent on particles that travel at many times the speed of light which would generate heat
Why they should generate heat? They can be reflected without absorption of heat. But people simply believe just the option, which they do want to believe.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2012
LOL, my real name is nowhere on the web, photo the less
Considering how much you lie that isn't exactly convincing. Even my real name is somewhere on the web.

They can be reflected without absorption of heat.
By magic? I don't think so.

Ethelred
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) Apr 17, 2012
For example, the Casimir force is caused with the same shielding mechanism - just the transverse waves are involved. Why the particles attracted mutually with Casimir force will not become hot?
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2012
a push force dependent on particles that travel at many times the speed of light which would generate heat
Why they should generate heat?


See the high school physics I posted for you last time you made this mistake.

They can be reflected without absorption of heat.


Correct, but if they are reflected, as many are reflected onto another body as deflected away from it so you get no shadowing and no force. A net force only results from the absorbed component, and that causes heating.

For example, the Casimir force is caused with the same shielding mechanism - just the transverse waves are involved. Why the particles attracted mutually with Casimir force will not become hot?


The waves are reflected on the outside of the plates but there are none inside because the separation is less than the wavelength.

But people simply believe just the option, which they do want to believe.


You speak for yourself, science uses maths and observation.
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 17, 2012
For example, the Casimir force is caused with the same shielding mechanism
No. It is caused by differential pressures from virtual particles. There are less between the plates then on the outside of the plates. However if you can figure out a way to prove that there is a large and continuing release of energy as a push gravity requires feel free to do the experiments.

http://en.wikiped...n#Energy

It was a dumb idea in 1748 and that hasn't changed.

Ethelred
Chakir_Abdi
1 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2012
@ Sorli,

Your photons based clock will slow down because you still need to produce those photons. You will need to excite something to produce those photons and, if you are using particles with mass, your clock, regardless made of atoms or photons, will slow down anyway.

Terriva
1 / 5 (9) Apr 17, 2012
A net force only results from the absorbed component, and that causes heating.
In this model the net force resulted from REFLECTED component and this saved the particles from overheating. Whole this article is based on this idea, including its math. So, why the same principle cannot be applied to LeSage model? Because of some primitive religion persisting between mainstream physicists? I'm not taking such an "argument".
It is caused by differential pressures from virtual particles.
In the same way the gravity force is generated in deFatio/LeSage model. Now the question remains the same: why the particles undergoing the Casimir force aren't heated?

You're good in downvoting, but I'm good in logics.
Russkiycremepuff
2.1 / 5 (14) Apr 17, 2012
Time cannot truly be quantifiable and is in and of itself. It cannot be controlled by matter, energy or space. Time is not dependent on physical matter or its velocity, nor of dimensional constraints. Time cannot go backward, up or down or sideways. It cannot propel matter, including living matter into the future or the past. Time only exists in the NOW, not later or what came before.
The human mind is naturally given to abstract thought and is really quite insane, despite its ability to perceive, recognize and act on stimuli. It thusly perpetuates its reluctance to remove its perceived dimensional quality from time due to regarding of time as a necessary evil or good.
Russkiycremepuff
2.3 / 5 (15) Apr 17, 2012
The term "Time constraints" is a good example of abstract thought in the human mind which places a quantity and a "time scale" on a perception of one event onward to another event. But the human mind does not allow that this perception of a time scale has nothing to do with the matter, energy and space that surrounds that mind. That is why the human mind MUST divide its perceived notion of time into clearly separate blocks of nanoseconds, seconds, minutes, hours, etc.
The human mind has a need to quantify time, according to its human physicality. Without this quantification, the human mind could not exist in normal behavior and pattern, but would, instead, have to rely on instinct alone.
Russkiycremepuff
2.2 / 5 (15) Apr 17, 2012
The concept of time, to a human mind, brings order out of chaos and can be interpreted in whichever way is most convenient. Time is only quantifiable as a convenience factor in which to produce results in any given HUMAN situation. But time is also a reason for haste due to the constraints of a life's time.
Time, with or without the human factor is not, never has been, and never will have a quality of dimension as we know dimensions. It continues on, as it always has and always will. Time itself, is the only true time traveler when all else has fallen away. Time is always precise, never slowing or hastening. It goes steady onward.
Thank you for reading this. Very few will agree with me, but those who do may be considered enlightened and much less insane than those who worship clocks.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2012
The universe is not a black hole....


I've spoken with an astrophysicist who would disagree.

Did you know a "black hole" does not have to have anything at the center? The shared center of mass of a system of densely packed stars could be the center of a black hole, in empty space...Nothing has to be "spaghettified" at all.

Hi D_C, I'd be really curious to know what astrophysicist you spoke to about this, becasue, although the scenario you describe is not completely excluded, it would be rather temporary as once inside an EH the direction "out" is equivalent to going back in time. In other words, there are no stable orbits inside an EH and all bodies eventually collapse to the centre to form a Kerr BH. This is actually not unlike a stellar collapse after infalling matter has become dense enough to form an EH, but before it has formed a ring singularity. Your scenario is just more prolonged.

BTW, AA's point still stands. The pre-Big Bang singularity vanishes at the BB.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) Apr 17, 2012
Very few will agree with me
It doesn't matter anyway, as your rambling doesn't imply any testable prediction. Nothing changes, if it would be wrong or correct.
Deathclock
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 17, 2012
although the scenario you describe is not completely excluded, it would be rather temporary as once inside an EH the direction "out" is equivalent to going back in time.


There is no "out"... once something goes in it stays in.

In other words, there are no stable orbits inside an EH


This is a non-sequitur, what you said does not support this conclusion.

and all bodies eventually collapse to the centre to form a Kerr BH.


Eventually sure... but what is time inside an EH?
brodix
1.5 / 5 (6) Apr 17, 2012
Change is utterly defined by time.
Which tells me that time is a property of the Universe.
Ethelred

The universe has many properties, from quantum fluctuation to people. The issue is order of emergence. At the point of the Big Bang, does all the history of the universe already exist in some fourth dimension, or is it a process of compounding complexity, in which past events do not physically exist, since the constituent energy is otherwise occupied manifesting current events?
Tachyon8491
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 17, 2012
All epistemology intrinsically relies on human attribution. To my mind, the arguments about time get lost in consideration of secondary phenomena which are attributional dynamics of the evolutionary causality of matter-energy complexes. Instead, the fundamental philosophy should be examined, e.g. as a simplest modelling alternative, which appears more true: "Change is dependent on time" or "Time is dependent on change" - or in different phrasing: "Any causal evolution from initial cause to effect depends on time" or "Time is a function of causal evolutions." Although it may appear that all these are analogous, there is an ACCENT of conceptual modelling in each. It is where one casts that accent that determines the primacy, or induced phenomenality, of time. We may ask, as cartesian coordinates reflect dimensional extension in space, is the existence of space itself a function of "extension in" time, or does it induce time's apparent dimensionality? Fundamental modelling incomplete...
Deathclock
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 17, 2012
I think our concept of time comes from our unique perception of reality. It could be that all instances exist simultaneously and we "travel through" them as a function of our cognition.

Prove me wrong.
Deathclock
1.7 / 5 (9) Apr 17, 2012
Time is utterly defined by change


Change is utterly defined by time.

Which tells me that time is a property of the Universe.


Change relates to physical things which we can point to and demonstrate, it actually exists... show me "time".

Time is a human invented concept that doesn't point to anything physical. Change points to physical reality, the configuration of the universe changes, from this we derive the non-physical concept of time.
Tachyon8491
1.9 / 5 (14) Apr 17, 2012
ALthough I am tempted to be converted to Sorli and Fiscaletti's perspective, their gedanken eksperiment with clocks is unrealistically idealised: In reality, a physical "photon clock" can only approach 2-dim structure orthogonal to a propagation vector in space - as a result, any remaining (unremoved) 3rd dimensionality in the photon clock would still undergo Lorentz contraction and therefore tend to cause a "tick at the same rate" - whether a difference would be detectable is then doubtful, unless differential physical parameters in the two clocks could be effectively maximised. As a result, IMO, this experiment remains difficult to extend beyond theoretical physics into pragmatic reality...
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2012
once inside an EH the direction "out" is equivalent to going back in time.


There is no "out"... once something goes in it stays in.


Well, that's what I said :)

In other words, there are no stable orbits inside an EH
This is a non-sequitur, what you said does not support this conclusion.

Sorry, this is tough at 1K charaters a pop. Also, I'm assuming a certain knowlege of BH, esp. Kerr BH (ergosphere & all). What I'm getting at is that even "orbiting" at C just outside the EH you'll still spiral in, inside even moreso. So the scenario you describe is very temporary, and "spagettification" inevitable...unless you can somehow go through the ring. You'd have to have V=C perpendicular to the EH at the EH not to fall in.
and all bodies eventually collapse to the centre to form a Kerr BH.


Eventually sure... but what is time inside an EH?
The same entity as outside the EH, but it behaves differently, i.e., space-like with the future being "down".
Deathclock
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 17, 2012
What I'm getting at is that even "orbiting" at C just outside the EH you'll still spiral in, inside even moreso. So the scenario you describe is very temporary, and "spagettification" inevitable


No... I'm not talking about orbiting outside of anything. External to the system the combined pull of all of the massive stars is enough to form a black hole at the point in empty space that is the combined center of gravity of those stars... INSIDE the system the stars no longer pull you to that center of mass when some stars are in front of you, some behind you, some to the left and some to right some up and some down etc... Then there is no "pull" toward the center, and you can form a stable orbit around one of these stars.

You don't understand I am not talking about a black hole formed by the collapse of a star, I am talking about a black hole centered on a combined center of gravity of many massive stars that pull toward that point ONLY when you are outside the system.
Deathclock
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 17, 2012
You know about binary star systems right? Two stars orbit a combined center of gravity that exists in empty space. From outside of this system the NET effect of the combined gravitational attraction of both stars will pull things toward this center of gravity. However, once an object passes INTO the system, inside the orbital radius of the stars, then one star will pull in one direction and the other will pull in another direction. From outside the system there is a very strong pull toward the combined center of gravity, once inside the system that pull is no longer toward that central location, but toward each star, which could be on opposite sides of you... there is no reason that one of the stars could not capture you into a stable orbit.

The attraction of the cluster of stars toward their center of mass could be so great that once inside the system nothing could ever escape it, because as you move toward the edge they ALL pull you back

Do you understand now?
Deathclock
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 17, 2012
You have to understand that when all of these stars in this cluster are to one side of you they are all pulling you in the same direction, but once you pass into the cluster they would each be pulling you in different directions, cancelling each other out more or less. From outside the system you would see a black hole, from inside the system it would be normal space filled with stars.

Our universe could be the inside of a black hole (as observed from an external perspective). Inside the universe you have mass all around you pulling you in every direction and mostly cancelling out, but as you approach the edge of the universe all of the mass is behind you, pulling you in one single direction (toward the combined center of mass of the universe).
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 17, 2012
Entropy is a epiphenomenon. Time is an a-priori intuition of mind so is not physical entity of itself. Time has never been discovered independently of its application.

I am sorry but I had to give you a 1 because I did not like the word 'epiphenomenon'. Try another one please. Something a little more ...congenial.


In the time you wrote that post you could have looked the word up.

I mean, entropy is "a secondary phenomenon accompanying another and caused by it",.... that is to say, it is not a primary or fundamental phenomena itself.
But I already know enough words. I need not clutter up my personal lexicon with pretentious philo words with no intrinsic value.

Again, sorry.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2012
In http://phys.org/n...ind.html the net force resulted from REFLECTED component and this saved the particles from overheating. Whole this article is based on this idea, including its math. So, why the same principle cannot be applied to LeSage model?


In Fatio's model, the Sun shields us from particles orginating on the far side from us, you understand that. If particles were reflected, some that come from our side of the Sun would reflect off it and bounce back to us. If you sum over the whole sky, the result is that those reflected exactly cancel the shielding hence there is no resulting force.

Because of some primitive religion persisting between mainstream physicists? I'm not taking such an "argument".


It's a primitive belief called "adding up" and even Le Sage knew that result. That's why he spent many years trying to solve the heating problem (but he never did).
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2012
Now the question remains the same: why the particles undergoing the Casimir force aren't heated?

You're good in downvoting, but I'm good in logics.


No, your not good at logic because the waves are reflected on the outside so no heating but there are no waves (or at least fewer modes) on the inside hence also no heating. Reflected waves do cause a push as in solar sails. See my other post for why Fatio's model fails even though reflection would solve the heating problem, it creates a different one.
Russkiycremepuff
2.2 / 5 (13) Apr 17, 2012
In a binary star system, it's true that one or the other could capture a piece of matter-energy and the two will tug at that "piece" while stretching it out. If it was centered, then both stars get equal amounts. If not centered, then the whole of it will most likely go toward the strongest gravitational pull and enter into its disk.
As to BH, EH can only be created outside of a BH. Although matter-energy cannot escape even from the outer edges of the EH, time, even as a dimension is not a factor in the inability of escape from the singularity and its EH even at the velocity of c. The EH is not a flat disk as portrayed in BH illustrations that look similar to the rings of Saturn, imo. We only think of it as a disk since that is most familiar to us, e.g., the early solar system; rings of the planets; subatomic particles. I tend more to believe that the EH is an outer "shield" that encompasses the BH, similar to the shell that encases a walnut or filbert but is penetrable and porous.
Deathclock
1 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2012
What? The object entering the cluster of stars could be captured by one of them and form a stable orbit. This is less likely than it being pulled into one of the stars and destroyed obviously...

The event horizon is simply the distance from the center of mass of the system that, once traversed, light cannot escape back beyond that distance...

Most of what you said appears to be nonsense, but there may be a language barrier.
Russkiycremepuff
2 / 5 (8) Apr 17, 2012
No one has ever actually seen an EH, so I could be right, or wrong.
Time has no involvement in piece of matter-energy falling into a singularity through the EH first. If we are able to see the matter-energy falling into it, it may appear to slow down due to our distance from that event and how we conceive its physicality. The light that comes to us and our telescope has been long in arriving to our eyes and the singularity may have already moved even farther away and that whole region of space may no longer be there, having been consumed already.
We humans are prone to time constraints or the concept of that which we choose to regard as time, due to our abstract thought processes in our conscious moments.
But consider how we are in our sleep. In our unconsciousness during sleep, we are able to dream, but we have no concept of time passing. In those hours, we are no longer slaves to clocks, but when we wake up, time resumes for us due to our concept of it resuming.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2012
Do you understand now?

I understood you perfectly from the start, but I also know you're missing a very important point here:

If the mass of your combined system is enough to create an event horizon, it doesn't matter what the orbital speed of your objects is (whether stars, neutron stars or even independent black holes) inside the EH (and as I wrote, this also applies just outside the BH) the collapse of your system is INEVITABLE. No orbital speed can keep them apart. If they can orbit stably, you don't have an EH. Now, do YOU understand?

And while I concede you could sit in the *middle* of it in flat space-time until it all comes down on you and not have to worry about spagettification in that case...it would be the least of your worries!

So back to my original question: who was the astrophysicist you spoke, or what was his or her specialty? A lot of them specialize in analysis of atomic spectra and not necessarily in GR and exotic bodies. (Please, no Lisa Randall jokes, ok
Deathclock
2.4 / 5 (10) Apr 17, 2012
No one has ever actually seen an EH, so I could be right, or wrong.


What are you talking about? This is derived from mathematics... The event horizon is the point of no return, there is nothing to "see", it is not a physical thing, it is a distance from the center of gravity beyond which you cannot return, it is the point of no return.

It's not a real thing to discover, it's a thing that WE define.
Fleetfoot
4 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2012
ALthough I am tempted to be converted to Sorli and Fiscaletti's perspective, their gedanken eksperiment with clocks is unrealistically idealised:


Actually it isn't difficult at all, the two beams in their diagram are exactly what Michelson and Morley did over a century ago. If they say photons aren't affected but matter is, there should be a fringe shift in the MMX and of course there isn't.
Deathclock
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 17, 2012
If the mass of your combined system is enough to create an event horizon, it doesn't matter what the orbital speed of your objects is (whether stars, neutron stars or even independent black holes) inside the EH (and as I wrote, this also applies just outside the BH) the collapse of your system is INEVITABLE. No orbital speed can keep them apart. If they can orbit stably, you don't have an EH.


The rate of collapse would depend on the size of the cluster, while I agree that the collapse to the center of mass is inevitable (barring such things as dark energy) it could well play out over billions of years, plenty long for a planet to form with intelligent life pondering such things.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2012
What? The object entering the cluster of stars could be captured by one of them and form a stable orbit.


Actually, yes, correct, but only until the ultimate collapse of your system (or until the approach of another body in the system destabilizes it's orbit during the collapse)

The event horizon is simply the distance from the center of mass of the system that, once traversed, light cannot escape back beyond that distance...


It's more complicated than that, Deathclock. The space-time gradient keeps INCREASING as you move towards the mass(es) that contribute to forming the EH (in your scenario or any other). By the time an EH has formed, S-T is already so warped that even a photon can't climb directly out of the gravity well. And there's no way orbiting bodies can keep from ultimately heading for each other: they would need to orbit at a V>C. I don't know what astrophysicist you spoke to, but their specialty was't GR.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2012
External to the system the combined pull of all of the massive stars is enough to form a black hole at the point in empty space that is the combined center of gravity of those stars...


A black hole isn't a point, it's a region centred on a point. For the simplest non-rotating, uncharged region, the event horizon is the place where you have to travel at the speed of light through space just to stay at a constant radius.

INSIDE the system the stars no longer pull you to that center of mass when some stars are in front of you, some behind you, some to the left and some to right some up and some down etc... Then there is no "pull" toward the center, and you can form a stable orbit around one of these stars.


In that case you have a globular cluster, not a black hole. To stay in a circular orbit 50% OUTSIDE the event horizon an object has to be moving at the speed of light, any closer and it spirals in so the stars can't exist inside for any significant time.
Deathclock
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 17, 2012
Look, astrophysicists can explain this better than I can, there is a journal article in ArXiv that deals with this, stating that stars, planets, maybe even an entire universe CAN exist inside a black hole. I can't look for it now (at work) but look for it and read it.
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2012
The rate of collapse would depend on the size of the cluster, while I agree that the collapse to the center of mass is inevitable (barring such things as dark energy) it could well play out over billions of years, plenty long for a planet to form with intelligent life pondering such things.


Oh geeze! Why didn't you just SAY SO? I see where you're going with this(...latest addition to your scenario). I.e., the parallel bewteen a universe that ultimately collapses and massive content spiralling together to form a black hole has often been made...not unfairly...but there does remain one serious objection: the ultimate fate of our own universe doesn't appear to be collapse, but heat death. So the idea of our universe being equivalent to a black hole that will ultimately reform it's original singularity from the (gravitational) collapse of its contents doesn't actually seem to hold.
Deathclock
1 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2012
Oh geeze! Why didn't you just SAY SO? I see where you're going with this(...latest addition to your scenario). I.e., the parallel bewteen a universe that ultimately collapses and massive content spiralling together to form a black hole has often been made...not unfairly...but there does remain one serious objection: the ultimate fate of our own universe doesn't appear to be collapse, but heat death. So the idea of our universe being equivalent to a black hole that will ultimately reform it's original singularity from the (gravitational) collapse of its contents doesn't actually seem to hold.


Right, that's solid evidence that this does not apply to our universe, but it could to others.
Russkiycremepuff
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 17, 2012
Also, consider that animals of whatever nature who appear not to think abstractly as humans do. The animals of Earth react instinctively only to cause and effect. For them, they react to changes in seasons; night and daylight; weather patterns; estrus cycles; temperature, humidity, and location of food and water. They have no compulsion to act against their nature and have no perception of time other than the above changes. But humans, being aware of our perceptions that include time and what we have come to regard as the results of observance of time or lack of it, have made time into a fourth dimension along with the three true spatial dimensions.
The problem with regarding time as another dimension is that we cannot SEE time as we can see height, width, depth. There may be other dimensions along with the first three, but TIME is not one of them. Time is part of man's insanity and is a result of our evolution.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2012
Look, astrophysicists can explain this better than I can, there is a journal article in ArXiv that deals with this, stating that stars, planets, maybe even an entire universe CAN exist inside a black hole. I can't look for it now (at work) but look for it and read it.

Weeelllll, yeah, but be careful about the arXiv, D_C, it's not the equivalent of a mainstream peer-reviewed journal. There's a lot of good stuff in there awaiting publication in places like The Astrophysical Journal, but there's also alot of, um, marginal stuff that's there because academics, well, have to put out. Some of it can certianly be thought provoking, but a fair share of it is just nonsense.
Amerikansky Observersky
2.2 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2012
Everything is quantum. Reality and time are subjective.When the observer tries to measure a photon's position, he collapses the wave. There is no time for a photon. Time is an illusion of a biological observer due to Planck's constant,and reality is discontinuous.
Gawad
not rated yet Apr 17, 2012
External to the system the combined pull of all of the massive stars is enough to form a black hole at the point in empty space that is the combined center of gravity of those stars...


For the simplest non-rotating, uncharged region, the event horizon is the place where you have to travel at the speed of light through space just to stay at a constant radius.

INSIDE the system the stars no longer pull you to that center of mass when some stars are in front of you, some behind you, some to the left and some to right some up and some down etc... Then there is no "pull" toward the center, and you can form a stable orbit around one of these stars.


In that case you have a globular cluster, not a black hole. To stay in a circular orbit 50% OUTSIDE the event horizon an object has to be moving at the speed of light, any closer and it spirals in so the stars can't exist inside for any significant time.


You said it better than I did, that's for sure!
Deathclock
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 17, 2012
You're still not getting it though, a globular cluster can BE a black hole if the average density is high enough.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2012
INSIDE the system the stars no longer pull you to that center of mass when some stars are in front of you, some behind you

What pulled you in (all the mass at the singularity) didn't go away once you fell in. Everything that fell in before you is already way ahead of you (you aren't going to overtake anything in a black hole). So the pull to the center will always remain - UNLESS another black hole fell in with you. To be more precise: The only way that gravitational pull is going to be non infinite for you in one direction very quickly is like this:

When you are right at the point where the event horizons of two approaching black holes of equal mass and zero rotation meet with a motion vector which is balanced precisely between that of the two black holes.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2012
You're still not getting it though, a globular cluster can BE a black hole if the average density is high enough.


No, you're not getting it, if the density becomes high enough, there are no stable orbits so the motion of every star within the cluster becomes a spiral ending at the centre in a very short time. During that infall, adjacent stars would appear blue-shifted because they are all heading towards a common point.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2012
Look, astrophysicists can explain this better than I can, there is a journal article in ArXiv that deals with this, stating that stars, planets, maybe even an entire universe CAN exist inside a black hole. I can't look for it now (at work) but look for it and read it.


There are complex solutions for orbits in very fast rotating holes but tests looking for any rotation of the universe find none. There would also be a complex mix of extreme red and blue shifts in such a structure which bears no resemblance to the pattern we observe of redshift in all directions.
Tachyon8491
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 17, 2012

Actually it isn't difficult at all, the two beams in their diagram are exactly what Michelson and Morley did over a century ago.


Unfortunately you've totally missed the point - I well considered MM's interferometry experiment before committing my view: to make a "photon clock" requires a PHYSICAL structure which cannot just be 2-D and must have an orthogonal component in the propagation direction. You are overlooking that completely and dismissing its significance - this is NOT like two physically orthogonal arms in the MM experiment at all...
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2012
Gravitational waves are transverse quadrupole
I didn't talk about gravitational waves at all.


Here is the abstract of the paper you cited:

"In linearized, EinsteinMaxwell theory on flat spacetime, an oscillating electric dipole is the source of a spin-2 field. Within this approximation to general relativity, it is shown that electromagnetic waves harbour gravitational waves."

A massless spin-2 particle is a graviton.

These quadruple waves cannot exist...


And yet they do.

Gravitational waves do not have a unique speed of propagation, the speed of the alleged waves is coordinate dependent. A different set of coordinates yields a different speed of propagation ..


They move at the speed of light as perturbations in a flat background, and that value is of course frame independent.

In dense aether model the CMBR noise is actually manifestation of gravitational waves


In Lorentz's aether which you are trying to describe, the CMBR didn't exist.
Deathclock
1 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2012
What pulled you in (all the mass at the singularity) didn't go away once you fell in. Everything that fell in before you is already way ahead of you (you aren't going to overtake anything in a black hole). So the pull to the center will always remain - UNLESS another black hole fell in with you. To be more precise: The only way that gravitational pull is going to be non infinite for you in one direction very quickly is like this:


No, you aren't understanding... consider a binary star system, far outside the system both stars are in front of you and pull you forward... once you enter the system the stars are on opposite sides of you and their individual gravitational accelerations on you largely cancel each other out... It's not that the forces go away, the vectors along which they pull you change as you approach or recede from the system.
Russkiycremepuff
2 / 5 (8) Apr 17, 2012
No one has ever actually seen an EH, so I could be right, or wrong.


What are you talking about? This is derived from mathematics... The event horizon is the point of no return, there is nothing to "see", it is not a physical thing, it is a distance from the center of gravity beyond which you cannot return, it is the point of no return.

It's not a real thing to discover, it's a thing that WE define.
- DC

I am not arguing a nonexistence of EH. In association with a BH, it very much exists. I actually made the point that the EH may not be a flat disk at all. It may be more of a "shell" that encompasses the BH, except at the poles. I say this because of pictures showing gamma rays, et al, streaking in long lines from both north and south poles of a BH or neutron star.

But then, there is this:
http://www.isgtw....eir-jets
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 17, 2012
Although it may appear that all these are analogous, there is an ACCENT of conceptual modelling in each. It is where one casts that accent that determines the primacy, or induced phenomenality, of time.
I wonder where scientists who would be planning experiments would choose to cast said ACCENT? I dont recall any ACCENTS in the math I learned in school. But then I am not a scientist or a mathematician.
We may ask, as cartesian coordinates reflect dimensional extension in space, is the existence of space itself a function of "extension in" time, or does it induce time's apparent dimensionality? Fundamental modelling incomplete...
You may ask all you want but it appears that you dont have the necessary backround or experience to offer any answers. By the by as there is no metaphysical, you ought to be revising your curriculum vitae.
brodix
1 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2012
Dc,
I think our concept of time comes from our unique perception of reality. It could be that all instances exist simultaneously and we "travel through" them as a function of our cognition.
Prove me wrong.

Say the universal narrative is loaded on that cosmic dvd; since our experience is of dynamic change, what causes it to play? We transition from past events to succeeding ones, as these situations coalesce out of potential and recede into the past? Can you explain how this perception of change exists, if time is a static dimension?
On the other hand, applying Ockham's Razor, it could simply be a universe of energy and the changing configurations coalesce out of potential and are replaced, thus it is the events going future to past, not this present moving/existing along an external vector. So variable clock rates would be due to variations in levels of activity. More activity, faster rate of change. So since gravity fields and acceleration slow internal atomic activity, the
Terriva
1 / 5 (9) Apr 17, 2012
it is shown that electromagnetic waves harbour gravitational waves...A massless spin-2 particle is a graviton.
In dense aether model is't the same.
..These quadruple waves cannot exist... And yet they do.
But you have no experimental evidence for it. Experiments are always going first in physics, theories and god wishes later...
...They move at the speed of light as perturbations in a flat background..
Again, you have no experimental evidence for it and theory is against it. Sorry...
In Lorentz's aether which you are trying to describe, the CMBR didn't exist.
Dense aether model is not based on Lorentz aether.
brodix
1 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2012
So since gravity fields and acceleration slow internal atomic activity, the clock rate in these contexts runs slower. So one twin ages slower than the other because the emergent processes of her metabolic rate have been slowed.
There seems to be some agreement that time is a measure and so is temperature. Consider the most elemental theoretical states; moments after the singularity, vacuum fluctuation, absolute zero. They are all most defined in terms of levels of activity, not rates of change. The problem is that we understand temperature is a measure, but since we perceive time as narrative from past to future, rather than the more elemental changing configuration, that process of change becomes the measurement of duration. If the change happens faster the duration is shorter and time is faster. All this still happens within the context of the present, not external to it. We are not moving into the future, it is the events receding into the past.
simplicio
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2012
To my mind, the arguments about time get lost in consideration of secondary phenomena which are attributional dynamics of the evolutionary causality of matter-energy complexes. Instead, the fundamental philosophy should be examined, e.g. as a simplest modelling alternative, which appears more true: "Change is dependent on time" or "Time is dependent on change" or in different phrasing: "Any causal evolution from initial cause to effect depends on time" or "Time is a function of causal evolutions." Although it may appear that all these are analogous, there is an ACCENT of conceptual modelling in each. It is where one casts that accent that determines the primacy, or induced phenomenality, of time. We may ask, as cartesian coordinates reflect dimensional extension in space, is the existence of space itself a function of "extension in" time or does it induce time's apparent dimensionality?

You use many complicated words, but I can not see your meaning. Is your goal to communicate?
AmritSorli
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2012
1.We do not know any physical cause for which material object in a moving inertial system should shrink along X axis. Mathematical formalism of Lorentz transformation is not enough that material object will shrink. In this virtue is convenient to replace Lorentz transformation with Galilean transformation and to introduce Selleri transformation for time.

2.GPS shows rate of clocks on the orbit station and on the surface is valid for all observers. In this virtue introduction of coordinate time and proper time is unnecessary. Clocks run in a 3D quantum vacuum and their rate depends on velocity of inertial system and gravity.

3.Why a moving photon clock should run slower for a stationary observer? Yes, he sees photon path is not vertical but because of this clock will not change its rate. Or he has some magic power to change rate of the clock. I do not believe.

4.Out of the constancy of light comes rate of photon clocks is constant in all inertial systems.
ubavontuba
2.2 / 5 (13) Apr 18, 2012
Sorli and Fiscaletti argue that the slow clocks can better be described by the relative velocity between the two reference frames,
I've never read such rubbish before in my life... well, actually I did. April 25, 2011:

http://phys.org/n...ion.html

Anyway...
They argue that well-known time dilation experiments, such as those demonstrating that clocks do in fact run slower in high-speed airplanes than at rest,
Idiots. These experiments didn't prove airplane mounted clocks run slower. They move slower or faster, depending on the direction of travel:
http://en.wikiped...ct_tests

I hope nobody buys into any of this rubbish. Physorg should be ashamed for publishing this crap (again).
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (15) Apr 18, 2012
Here's a simple thought experiment which proves the validity of Minkowski spacetime:

If two observers are in uniform motion relative to an observed frequency generator (they're not in motion relative to the generator) and one is in a gravity well and the other not, they will perceive different frequencies from the same source (and experience different clock rates from each other, as a result). Therefore, time is a property of spacetime, and not simply a numerical order of change, as the spacetime between the observers and the frequency generator is the only difference.

Has Sorli started talking about his theory that dark matter is the souls of dead people yet?

Terriva
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2012
1.We do not know any physical cause for which material object in a moving inertial system should shrink along X axis.
Of course we know it. It's the limited speed of spreading of light.

How the experiment described in the article differs from Michelson-Morley experiment?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Apr 18, 2012
No, you aren't understanding... consider a binary star system, far outside the system both stars are in front of you and pull you forward... once you enter the system the stars are on opposite sides of you and their individual gravitational accelerations on you largely cancel each other out...

That's what I was saying. To counter the gravitational pull you need an equally stron force (i.e. something that is as massive and as close as the one pulling you in the one direction or vastly more massive if it is further away.)

To feel no acceleration (like we do) you'd need to have these two forces cancel out. Within a black hole the gravitational differentials are so great that along the diameter of the Earth you'd feel a marked difference in pull. [cont]
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Apr 18, 2012
[cont]

Gravity goes with distance squared. So no configuration of external masses (save for a lopsided Dyson sphere with one end being a black hole of universe mass itself - which BTW would already preclude it from being a Dyson sphere) would give us the feeling of not expriencing any net gravitational force like we currently do.

Even if such a stupendously unlikley configuration were to be true - it would only work for a miniscule central region. Assuming it is so finely balanced as to 'protect' the Earth then anything even marginally outside the position of Earth (like the Moon, any other planet or the Sun...not to speak of other stars/galaxies) would feel the full differential. We'd see spaghettification of all other objects. Instantly.
Sulfuric72
not rated yet Apr 18, 2012
Time will ultimately be defined as the maximum number of calculations performable in a finite area before "time" begins to slow down. Think of time as a Cpu rather than tic toc and it will begin to make more sense. The faster and denser X is the more calculations needed to register transition aka Movement.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2012
The universe has many properties, from quantum fluctuation to people
No. Fluctuations yes but people are not a basic property, they are an emergent phenomena of another emergent phenomena the evolution of life, which itself is an emergent phenomena of chemistry, which as emergent phenomena of ... the question is where does the linked list of emergent phenomena end? That point is the basic properties of the Universe.

By property I mean its the bottom and there is no reason except that is the way it is. Space is a property of the Universe as far as we can tell. Though space does not actually exist on its own, it is part of the property Space-Time.

At the point of the Big Bang, does all the history of the universe already exist in some fourth dimension,
Hellifino. Though that doesn't go with Uncertainty in the Copenhagen model it does go with the Multiple Worlds model.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2012
I think our concept of time comes from our unique perception of reality.
I think our perceptions are based on the reality we live in.

It could be that all instances exist simultaneously and we "travel through" them as a function of our cognition.
The math is still timelike. Any attempt to change that tends to be a mess.

Prove me wrong.
Taking lessons from Zephir? How about you produce some math that isn't timelike and then get back to us. Amrit has made a complete botch of his attempts to do so. All he did was attempt to hide the timelike nature of the equations which were still timelike.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2012
Change relates to physical things which we can point to and demonstrate, it actually exists... show me "time".
Time relates to physical things which we can point to and demonstrate how they behave over over time. Show me change without time.

Time is a human invented concept that doesn't point to anything physical.
Change is human invented concpet that doesn't point to anything but time.

I can do this all day you know. I did it to Amrit. You are playing word games and not dealing with reality.

Change points to physical reality, the configuration of the universe changes, from this we derive the non-physical concept of time.
Time points to physical reality from this we derive the non-physical concept of space.

Space-time is a property of the Universe.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2012
1.We do not know any physical cause for which material object in a moving inertial system should shrink along X axis.
We do have a cause in Special Relativity. As in TIME and SPACE are ONE property and you can't replace time with change in those equations.

2.GPS shows rate of clocks on the orbit station and on the surface is valid for all observers. In this virtue introduction of coordinate time and proper time is unnecessary.
Except that the reason they work correctly is because they take both GR and SR into account with the GPS system. Which are based on SPACE-TIME. Not change-space.

Or he has some magic power to change rate of the clock. I do not believe.
Whether you believe or not the experiments match the theories. Your belief is completely irrelevant to reality.>>
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2012
4.Out of the constancy of light comes rate of photon clocks is constant in all inertial systems.
Which follows from both GR and SR which again are dependent on SPACE-TIME not space-change.

OK so since you decided to post I am going to ask that question you refused to deal with the last yet again.

What does science gain by using change instead of time? Keeping in mind that the mathematical circumlocutions you would have to use are exceeding awkward and tell us nothing new about the Universe.

IF a new theory is to replace a previous one it MUST

Give at least as a good a prediction of what will happen in experiments.
If it isn't a BETTER prediction then it must have something else going for it. It must either tell us something new the Universe or it must at least be simpler.

So far you making things harder and aren't telling us anything new. Which means it is not worth using.

Ethelred
Tachyon8491
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2012
You may ask all you want but it appears that you dont have the necessary backround or experience to offer any answers. By the by as there is no metaphysical, you ought to be revising your curriculum vitae.


Thank you for the ad hominem attack - I am of course not surprised that entities like you will sink to depths of understanding you display - all pragmatism and dialectical materialist positivism is ultimately also intuitively guided, but that escapes you - fundamental questions do trigger accents of attention in the pursuit of modelling which Do manifest themselves in the resulting formalisms of modelling: maths and equations you appear so fond of. But that's a little too subtle for your cerebral neurology, no doubt. I have two words for you, and they are not "Bon Voyage."
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2012
I don't much care about this particular argument BUT

dialectical materialist positivism
That is word wuze. Words invented to obfuscate instead of elucidate. Which is probably what got Otto annoyed in the first place.

Ethelred
Tachyon8491
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2012
You use many complicated words, but I can not see your meaning. Is your goal to communicate.


Jack and (meaning "also") went up the hill, to fetch a pail (a bucket) of water - Do try some of the latter substance behind the ears - it's all relative. I would kindly suggest you investing in a good thesaurus (look up the word "thesaurus" in a dictionary) (Ah, that's a book with words and their explanations) As for "explanations" - well, some are beyond the conceptual capacities of the synaptic matrix resident in the cortex of the perceiver, no doubt. My sympathies, and regards.
Tachyon8491
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2012
Dear Ethelred, is "wuze" a word invented to elucidate or obfuscate? Perhaps you have not studied the conceptual tenets of logical positivism or dialectical materialism and disbelieve their existence and relevance? Lexemes (agh, there's no doubt another "obfuscation" for you,) are unitary encodings of meaning - some are a little more complex than others but intrinsically aimed at compact effectiveness in encoding their conceptual content. When someone doesn't cope with that, it's infantile to react with ad hominem attack, instead of rather just looking it up. The rhetoric here should concern itself with the subject being debated, hone in on its essential, primary conceptual content and work towards understanding - not mutual diminishment. Then again, when you step in the poop, it becomes easier to leave your own trail.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2012
Thank you for responding, it will be enlightening to hear your side of the argument.

1.We do not know any physical cause for which material object in a moving inertial system should shrink along X axis.


That is correct, hence it is reasonable to assume that they do not shrink. However, when measured in a moving frame, the measurement is reduced. The geometrical explanation of SR shows how those two requirements can be reconciled.

Mathematical formalism of Lorentz transformation is not enough that material object will shrink.


Correct, Lorentz's postulate of physical deformation was always an ad hoc phenomenon and became unnecessary when Einstein and Minkowski provided the alternative model of Reimann geometry.

In this virtue is convenient to replace Lorentz transformation with Galilean transformation and to introduce Selleri transformation for time.


The universe is not required to be "convenient".
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2012
it is shown that electromagnetic waves harbour gravitational waves...A massless spin-2 particle is a graviton.
In dense aether model is't the same.


It will the same in all theories, it is determined by the fact that it is spin 2 and massless.

..These quadruple waves cannot exist... And yet they do.
But you have no experimental evidence for it.

Hulse and Taylor provided that evidence.

...They move at the speed of light as perturbations in a flat background..
Again, you have no experimental evidence for it and theory is against it. Sorry...

The theory requires it, you can find the derivation in most good books on GR.

In Lorentz's aether which you are trying to describe, the CMBR didn't exist.
Dense aether model is not based on Lorentz aether.

You previously cited Lodge's presentation of LET and have since offerred nothing else. Since you are only trolling, it doesn't matter.
simplicio
5 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2012
Jack and (meaning "also") went up the hill, to fetch a pail (a bucket) of water - Do try some of the latter substance behind the ears - it's all relative. I would kindly suggest you investing in a good thesaurus (look up the word "thesaurus" in a dictionary) (Ah, that's a book with words and their explanations) As for "explanations" - well, some are beyond the conceptual capacities of the synaptic matrix resident in the cortex of the perceiver, no doubt

Thank you for the insult. I understand, but you use too many unnecessary words again. And you are hypocritical because in your own words you object:

Thank you for the ad hominem attack - I am of course not surprised that entities like you will sink to depths of understanding you display

It seems entities like you serve no informational purpose.
BoxPopuli
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2012
The crackpot Amrit Sorli wrote:


2.GPS shows rate of clocks on the orbit station and on the surface is valid for all observers. In this virtue introduction of coordinate time and proper time is unnecessary. Clocks run in a 3D quantum vacuum and their rate depends on velocity of inertial system and gravity.


This is pure gaff, devoid of any meaning. The GPS clock rate is fully explained in the GR formalism, there are several good monographs on the subject. Of course, a crank like you, can't really follow, let alone accept such mainstream explanations.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2012
Hulse and Taylor provided that evidence.
Nope, they just provide evidence, that the binary pulsar system is losing it's energy. If it would be so simple, we wouldn't discuss it here.
..you previously cited Lodge's presentation of LET..
Lodge didn't present Lorentz Aether Theory, but his own theory in his book at all. You're living in virtual reality.
BoxPopuli
2 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2012
Extreme crank Armpit Sorli wrote:

3.Why a moving photon clock should run slower for a stationary observer? Yes, he sees photon path is not vertical but because of this clock will not change its rate. Or he has some magic power to change rate of the clock. I do not believe.


No one cares what you "believe", Armpit.The difference comes from the fact that \tau=Integral{\sqrt{1-(v(t)/c)^2}dt}
For v=0, \tau is maximized. The larger the v, the smaller the proper time, \tau. You can learn this from any introductory book on relativity. No need to demonstrate your ignorance all over the internet.
Gawad
4.9 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2012
1.We do not know any physical cause for which material object in a moving inertial system should shrink along X axis.
We do have a cause in Special Relativity. As in TIME and SPACE are ONE property and you can't replace time with change in those equations.

BTW, Zephir also answered this one correctly. The fundamental physical reason for length contraction and time dialation (and hence the wedding of space and time) is the limitation on the speed of light, and by extention the value of alpha.

That any self styled physicist should demonstrate such a failure to grasp basic, freshman level physics is pathetic beyond belief. Then again, frozen chickens can't do math.

Amrit, you are a disgrace.

Lisa, you do yourself and Physorg a disservice by promoting this crackpot level nonsense.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2012
2.GPS shows rate of clocks on the orbit station and on the surface is valid for all observers. In this virtue introduction of coordinate time and proper time is unnecessary.


The difference between the coordinate rate of the clocks and the proper rate is roughly 38.7us per day. That is compensated by a digital synthesiser on the satellite. If the distinction between coordinate and proper time was unnecessary, the circuit would be unnecessary too. Distinguishing them and using GR to calculate the value is what allowed the engineers to design the circuit.
Fleetfoot
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2012
3.Why a moving photon clock should run slower for a stationary observer? Yes, he sees photon path is not vertical but because of this clock will not change its rate. Or he has some magic power to change rate of the clock. I do not believe.

4.Out of the constancy of light comes rate of photon clocks is constant in all inertial systems.


The path of the light is not vertical as you say, it is the hypotenuse of a triangle created by the arm and the distance it travels while the light is in transit. The "magic" is Pythagoras' Theorem which says that the hypotenuse is longer than the other sides. The invariance of the speed of light means that the longer distance takes longer time therefore the photon clock would tick more slowly. That is simple geometry and valid regardless of whether you treat time as a dimension or not.

Are you saying you don't believe in Pythagoras' Theorem?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (12) Apr 18, 2012
Thank you for the ad hominem attack
You offer personal opinions and thus you should expect personal criticism. Your CV lists no science ed, and you accept the existance of a metanetherworld. One can infer that you lack the necessary skills.
I am of course not surprised that entities like you will sink to depths of understanding you display - all pragmatism and dialectical materialist positivism blah
Scientists do not use words like these in the course of their work as they are worthless because they simply do not inform? Why use them here? People just ignore them or become annoyed at the clutter.

When scientists use words in discussion, these words represent mathematical concepts and experimental data which they are mutually familiar with. When philos use their own pet words, they are only referring to word concepts which to them represent only fashion and pretense.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2012
Here you go. Dan dennett, a philo (of sorts) exposes and discredits the entire discipline in a few short sentences:

"[Others] note that my 'avoidance of the standard philosophical terminology for discussing such matters' often creates problems for me; philosophers have a hard time figuring out what I am saying and what I am denying. My refusal to play ball with my colleagues is deliberate, of course, since I view the standard philosophical terminology as worse than useless- a major obstacle to progress since it consists of so many errors."

- Daniel Dennett, The Message is: There is no Medium

-And he is certainly not the first to conclude this. Hawking is only the latest to declare the obvious - philosophy is dead, dead, dead.

Sadly, philos are content to lie in the grass picking their noses and watching the clouds go by, while scientists are busy doing the hard work of figuring out how the universe actually operates.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2012
Hulse and Taylor provided that evidence.
Nope, they just provide evidence, that the binary pulsar system is losing it's energy.


They showed it was losing energy at the rate predicted by GR to within 0.1%, that is the difference. You don't seem to understand that science is quantitative. That is why they were awarded the Nobel Prize for the measurement.

If it would be so simple, we wouldn't discuss it here.


There is no "discussion", they made an accurate measurement which matches the predicted value, those are the facts.

..you previously cited Lodge's presentation of LET..
Lodge didn't present Lorentz Aether Theory, but his own theory in http://www.scribd...of-Space at all. You're living in virtual reality.


The only equation relating to the topic I found in the document is that for Lorentz Contraction. If I missed one, just quote the page where it appears.
brodix
1 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2012
]No. Fluctuations yes but people are not a basic property,

I looked it up and while you might be more right, the argument could go the other way as well:
a : a quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an individual or thing (you)
b : an effect that an object has on another object or on the senses (people are an "effect")
c : virtue 3
d : an attribute common to all members of a class (you)

By property I mean its the bottom and there is no reason except that is the way it is. Space is a property of the Universe as far as we can tell. Though space does not actually exist on its own, it is part of the property Space-Time.

This goes to my point about temperature. How does space register as a property, if it is not manifesting some degree of thermal energy? Temperature seems as fundamental a property as time/rate of change. So why not also insist space doesn't exist on its own, but is part of the property of space-temperature/vacuum fluctuation?
Terriva
1 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2012
You don't seem to understand that science is quantitative. That is why they were awarded the Nobel Prize for the measurement.
I know, they were awarded the Nobel Prize for the measurement, but its still doesn't replace the direct evidence of gravitational waves. BTW Epicycle model was quantitative too. Lodge's theory has nothing to do with Lorentz aether.
brodix
1 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2012
At the point of the Big Bang, does all the history of the universe already exist in some fourth dimension,
Hellifino. Though that doesn't go with Uncertainty in the Copenhagen model it does go with the Multiple Worlds model.

It is the blocktime interpretation of spacetime. What makes the ideas such as time travel through warped spacetime possible, since those other events have to exist in order to access them.
Multiworlds has to do with relating this inherent determinism with the probabilistic nature of QM, by arguing that all possibilities do exist in distinct realities. On the other hand, if we view time as effect, it is the collapse of probability which yields determined effects, the future possibilities collapsing into actualities.
The laws which determine outcomes may be deterministic, but the input is probabilistic, since input could arrive from opposite directions at C, so all input into any event cannot be known at any single location, prior to that event.
PureLogic
1 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2012
GIANT DISCOVERY !

Time can certainly be abolished as the fourth dimension because;

GRAVITY is TIME

youtube.com/watch?v=fGuMyXYlhc4

atso
1 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2012
I have argued that we must stop the 4D worldview. Time is not the 4th dimension. Real time is NOW and it is dimensionless/timelessness, T = 0. Time in theories of physics is only scalar tag or pure number without any really physical status/meaning. This scalar time-tag is duration measured from T=0 and it can be sempiternally long or short, but never zero, so: t > 0.

See my book: "Two Dimensions of Time" (Peter Lange, 2003)
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (14) Apr 18, 2012
@Gawad:
That any self styled physicist should demonstrate such a failure to grasp basic, freshman level physics is pathetic beyond belief. Then again, frozen chickens can't do math.

Amrit, you are a disgrace.

Lisa, you do yourself and Physorg a disservice by promoting this crackpot level nonsense.
You get a "5" for mentioning frozen chickens! LOL
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2012
d2 = (ct)2 = x2 y2 z2

in this formalism time t is a numerical order of photon motion in a 3D space......if someone still think time is a 4th dimension of space take your time......

AmritSorli
1 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2012
d2 = (ct)2 = x2 y2 z2

in this formalism time t is a numerical order of photon motion in a 3D space......if someone still think time is a 4th dimension of space take your time......
Tachyon8491
1.8 / 5 (11) Apr 19, 2012
fashion and pretense.


Well, I suppose that when Einstein protested against predictive determinism while defending causal deterrminism with his rather well-known quote "God does not play dice with the universe" that, in your perspective then also qualifies as "philo," fashion and pretense.
I actually am a scientist, have six diplomas in electronics, specialising in process modelling and formal logic, digital logic, was principal of an electronics college for tewn years, probably more scientist than you are, (from the sound of you) have presented papers to international conferences, written published academic work. What the heck is your claim to fame when you have such a pathetically low degree of understanding of the formative psychodynamics underlying the scientific pursuit and all its modelling? Let's just agree to disagree and stop your ad hominem attacks - they reflect on your "netherworld."
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2012
I looked it up and while you might be more right, the argument could go the other way as well:
By look it up do you mean you are using a dictionary?

I am trying to go on facts and use words to deal with the facts not play a semantics game with social definitions.

a : a quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an individual or thing (you)
A property of an individual is a not a basic property of any universe.

b : an effect that an object has on another object or on the senses (people are an "effect")


Does not have to be a basic property of the Universe.

c : virtue 3
d : an attribute common to all members of a class (you)
Ditto and ditto.

This goes to my point about temperature. How does space register as a property, if it is not manifesting some degree of thermal energy?
I don't see what thermal energy has to do with it. ANY movement can only happen if there is space to move in.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2012
Thus SPACE is a property of the Universe and that movement takes time so it is another property of the Universe. Special Relativity shows that space and time are one property that we measure with four dimensions.

Temperature seems as fundamental a property as time/rate of change.
Temperature is a measurement of the kinetic energy of moving atoms. So it emerges from velocity and the energy carried by the atoms.

So why not also insist space doesn't exist on its own, but is part of the property of space-temperature/vacuum fluctuation?
Because you can't have temperature without movement through space-time but space-time does not need temperature. Vacuum fluctuations are another matter not related to temperature. At least I don't it does.

This is just spitwadding as I am not a physicist but I am thinking that vacuum fluctuations are an emergent property of space-time vs. the Uncertainty principle.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2012
in this formalism time t is a numerical order of photon motion in a 3D space......if someone still think time is a 4th dimension of space take your time.
Yes movement in space-time not change-time. Was that supposed to support you in any way?

The numerical order is TIMELIKE not CHANGELIKE.

And since that was you posting time and pretending it was something else here those questions you keep evading.

What does science gain by using change instead of time? Keeping in mind that the mathematical circumlocutions you would have to use are exceeding awkward and tell us nothing new about the Universe.

IF a new theory is to replace a previous one it MUST

Give at least as a good a prediction of what will happen in experiments.
If it isn't a BETTER prediction then it must have something else going for it. It must either tell us something new the Universe or it must at least be simpler.

So far you making things harder and aren't telling us anything new.


Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2012
Dear Ethelred, is "wuze" a word invented to elucidate or obfuscate?
Neither. It is from the Silver Eggheads. The very sound of it makes its meaning clear to most. Which is not the original meaning. But I find it useful as I have yet to see anyone not get the drift. Even you figured it out after damaging your thinking with German nonsense words that are self contradictory such as 'logical positivism' which is about as meaningless a noise as can be.

Perhaps you have not studied the conceptual tenets of logical positivism or dialectical materialism and disbelieve their existence and relevance?
They are words intended to obfuscate and they do exist. Just like any jargon the intent is to keep out the riff raff. Which is what you are doing. This a science discussion not a philosophical circle jerk

Lexemes ... are unitary encodings of meaning - some are a little more complex than others but intrinsically aimed at compact effectiveness in encoding their conceptual content
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2012
Which equals JARGON and like all jargon it is intended for a specific audience. In this case they are for philosophy and not actual science.

When someone doesn't cope with that, it's infantile to react with ad hominem attack
It is infantile to call all rational disagreements with you an ad hominem. I made no such attack.

instead of rather just looking it up
Sorry but it up to YOU to choose the words you want to communicate with or NOT, which is what you did. You chose to play word games instead of discuss science.

The rhetoric here should concern itself with the subject being debated, hone in on its essential, primary conceptual content and work towards understanding
I completely agree. Why didn't you try doing that?

Then again, when you step in the poop, it becomes easier to leave your own trail
So quit pooping on the discussion with mindless philosophy that isn't at all relevant.

Ethelred
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2012
You don't seem to understand that science is quantitative. That is why they were awarded the Nobel Prize for the measurement.
I know, they were awarded the Nobel Prize for the measurement, but its still doesn't replace the direct evidence of gravitational waves.


Additional confirmations always increase our confidence but theirs is the first.

BTW Epicycle model was quantitative too.


Right, and the discrepancies between it and reality show it to be wrong. GR passed Hulse and Talor's test.

Lodge's theory has nothing to do with Lorentz aether.


Lorentz partly credited Lodge with the development of the theory but whoever you want to thank, there remains only one relevant equation in Lodge's publication and that is the one for Lorentz's length contraction.

As I said, if you think I missed some other theory in the book, just tell me the page where the equation appears.
BoxPopuli
1 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2012
Extreme crank Amrit Sorli wasn't even able to write down the Minkowski metric correctly:

d2 = (ct)2 = x2 y2 z2


You are laughable, Armpit. Just laughable.
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2012
d2 = (ct)2 = x2 y2 z2

in this formalism time t is a numerical order of photon motion in a 3D space......if someone still think time is a 4th dimension of space take your time......

You...imbicile.

It's s^2=x^2 plus y^2 plus z^2-(ct)^2

Not d^2 = (ct)^2 = blah, blah, blah!

What the FUCK is WRONG with YOU! Since when does t^2 = x^2 plus y^2 plus z^2 (when c is taken in natural units)???

OMG, did you even graduate from high school? This is BELOW freshman level stuff! Amrit, even as a frozen chicken YOU ARE A COMPLETE FRAUD!!!

Do you REALIZE you've just exposed yourself as a complete fraud, or were you just trying to prove my point THAT FROZEN CHICKENS CAN'T DO MATH??? Because you just did that!

LISA ZYGA! DO you SEE the kind of FOOL you are PROMOTING??? Can YOU do math?
indio007
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2012
People will die for GR. It's the new religion.
There are too many anomalies to consider it anymore than an approximation or maybe even a special case.
brodix
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2012
Thus SPACE is a property of the Universe and that movement takes time so it is another property of the Universe.

All movement exists as present functions. Duration/the time taken, is emergent. That's why it's relative to context, not an Newtonian absolute. It is the events being replaced and fading into the past, not the present moving along an extra-dimensional vector. Tomorrow becomes yesterday, due to rotation, not the earth moving along 4D from yesterday to tomorrow.
Temperature is a measurement of the kinetic energy of moving atoms. So it emerges from velocity and the energy carried by the atoms.

Time is a measure of the change caused by movement.
you can't have temperature without movement through space-time but space-time does not need temperature.

No movement, no measurement, no spacetime, aka absolute0.
Vacuum fluctuations are another matter not related to temperature.

If you could measure vacuum fluctuation, that measurement is its temperature
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2012
Extreme crank Amrit Sorli wasn't even able to write down the Minkowski metric correctly:

d2 = (ct)2 = x2 y2 z2


You are laughable, Armpit. Just laughable.


...............................................................
distance AB2 = (ct)2 = X2 plus y2 plus y2

this equation above is valid for stationary observer on the point A.

We can describe SR in a 3D Euclidean space. For a moving observer on the point B is valid following equation:

distance BA2 = ((c (t plus dt ))2 = X2 plus y2 plus y2
because his clock has slower rate for dt regarding the clock of the stationary observer

Gawad
5 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2012
Extreme crank Amrit Sorli wasn't even able to write down the Minkowski metric correctly:

d2 = (ct)2 = x2 y2 z2


You are laughable, Armpit. Just laughable.


...............................................................
distance AB2 = (ct)2 = X2 plus y2 plus y2

this equation above is valid for stationary observer on the point A.

We can describe SR in a 3D Euclidean space. For a moving observer on the point B is valid following equation:

distance BA2 = ((c (t plus dt ))2 = X2 plus y2 plus y2
because his clock has slower rate for dt regarding the clock of the stationary observer

Oh! I see! It's with y^2 plus y^2 now! In 3D space. Well, why not "plus 2(y^2)"? Or ABC=123, simple as do re mi ...

Amrit, just say no to drugs, we'll all be much better for it soon enough.
BoxPopuli
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2012
Extreme crank Amrit Sorli is STILL unable to write down the simple Mikowski metric:

Extreme crank Amrit Sorli wasn't even able to write down the Minkowski metric correctly:

d2 = (ct)2 = x2 y2 z2


You are laughable, Armpit. Just laughable.


You are even more laughable.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Apr 19, 2012
Extreme crank Amrit Sorli is STILL unable to write down the simple Mikowski metric


By the by, welcome to the forum(s) Box; it's Physorgs great collection of religious nuts, cranks, kook, crackpots and flying pottery shards. Lots of fun to be had here for the whole family!
Chakir_Abdi
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2012
This entire discussion doesn't make sense to me. The article is saying to use "photonic clock" instead of atomic clock. But since we know that everything that has a speed less than the speed of light will slow down, how are you going to produce these photons and what rates? In the beginning the system that is producing the photons will produce at rate A and as the system is brought up to the speed of light it will produce the photons a rate B which will be B
Chakir_Abdi
1 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2012
This entire discussion doesn't make sense to me. The article is saying to use "photonic clock" instead of atomic clock. But since we know that everything that has a speed less than the speed of light will slow down, how are you going to produce these photons and what rates? In the beginning the system that is producing the photons will produce at rate A and as the system is brought up to the speed of light it will produce the photons a rate B which will be B
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2012
Well, I suppose that when Einstein protested against predictive determinism while defending causal deterrminism with his rather well-known quote "God does not play dice with the universe"
I can imagine he wouldnt have used those terms to explain what he was talking about.
that, in your perspective then also qualifies as "philo," fashion and pretense.
Right.
I actually am a scientist, have six diplomas in electronics, specialising in process modelling and formal logic, digital logic, was principal of an electronics college for tewn years,
That sounds more like engineering and less like physics to me but who knows?
probably more scientist than you are, (from the sound of you) have presented papers to international conferences, written published academic work.
Were any of those presented in your role as metaphysician?
Chakir_Abdi
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2012
.... In the beginning the system that is producing the photons will produce at rate A and as the system is brought up to the speed of light it will produce the photons a rate B which will be B<
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2012
What the heck is your claim to fame when you have such a pathetically low degree of understanding of the formative psychodynamics
Sorry I am nonplussed by cryptic philobabble. But lets do a little research...

"Psychodynamics is the theory and systematic study of the psychological forces that underlie human behavior...Sigmund Freud (18561939) developed psychodynamics to describe the processes of the mind as flows of psychological energy (Libido) in an organically complex brain... Psychodynamic therapies depend upon a theory of inner conflict, wherein repressed behaviours and emotions surface into the patients consciousness; generally, one conflict is subconscious."

Uh oh. I thought traditional psychotherapy has become passe... unfashionable of late. Like philosophy. Are you trying to explore the scientific process with freudian methods?
...underlying the scientific pursuit and all its modelling?
Apparently you are. I think you may be on the wrong track.
THE_ANTIPHILO
1.4 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2012
@tachyon
Scientists by the way are making great progress in understanding human behavior since they have been able to throw off the influence of freudians and other such philo-based flummery. Maybe you would like to look into this?

"Evolutionary psychology (EP) is an approach in the social and natural sciences that examines psychological traits such as memory, perception, and language from a modern evolutionary perspective. It seeks to identify which human psychological traits are evolved adaptations - that is, the functional products of natural selection or sexual selection."
http://en.wikiped...ychology

-Its the latest thing. And it leaves absolutely no room for metaphysical anything!
Let's just agree to disagree and stop your ad hominem attacks - they reflect on your "netherworld."
If you insist on mentioning philo nonsense you will be attacked. Hawking, Krauss, Dawkins, Feynman and so many others would agree with me.
THE_ANTIPHILO
1.9 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2012
Here is a funny website by a philo desperately trying to stay relevant. Arent they all? Trying that is?

"I know, I think, why some people seem to think that all that matters is science. I too think science is pretty damned important. But once you stop knowing about things, and start arguing about things you cannot know by science, you are doing philosophy, and so it is a little, dare I say, hypocritical, to argue, philosophically, that philosophy is crap. Not to mention self-contradictory."
http://evolvingth...entists/

-The philo doesnt grasp what most every scientist takes for granted: there is NOTHING you cannot know by science. And that leaves absolutely no room for him and his buds, nor all the (other) religions in the world. Too bad.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2012
All movement exists as present functions. Duration/the time taken, is emergent.
Duration is a measurement of time. All movement takes time over space so I have no problem with calling duration an emergent phenomena.

That's why it's relative to context, not an Newtonian absolute
It isn't a Netwonion absolute because EVERYONE will get the same result if they measure the speed of light.

not the present moving along an extra-dimensional vector.
Time IS a dimension of Space-time it is NOT extra dimesional.

Tomorrow becomes yesterday, due to rotation, not the earth moving along 4D from yesterday to tomorrow.
That is using words specific to humans on Earth not actual base properties of the universe. You seem to be having trouble with the concept of BASE PROPERTIES and THE UNIVERSE as opposed to words humans use for intervals of time.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2012
Time is a measure of the change caused by movement
Change is a result of movement over time. There is no change without time. Frozen chickens show that can be time without change.

No movement, no measurement, no spacetime, aka absolute0.
Absolute nonsense.

If you could measure vacuum fluctuation, that measurement is its temperature
If if if. And wrong. Its energy/mass.

Ethelred
Tachyon8491
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 19, 2012
Uh oh. I thought traditional psychotherapy has become passe... unfashionable of late. Like philosophy.


You are certainly correct in redundantly mentioning that Freudian psychology and much of its derived therapies are passe. However (I'm sure you knew a "but" was coming) you also appear then to believe that there are no formative forces, dynamics, fundamental attractors, underlying hunan behaviours - consciousness must be an epiphenomenon to you, right? The term psychodynamics may well have had an early origin, it still has universal applicability in refering to the Dynamics of the Psyche, unless of course, you subscribe to the neuricentric paradigm, like Francis Crick who believes (1994) that consciousness is entirely due to neuronal activity and that its centre is probably congruent with the anterior cingulate sulcus of the cortex. Where exactly do you draw the line, the threshold, between thought and science, between conjecture and pragmatism, between philosophy and science
Tachyon8491
1.4 / 5 (12) Apr 19, 2012
@Ethelred

Its "an emergent phenomenon" (singular case) and "emergent phenomena" (plural) Worth getting that right, although so few do..
Regards.
simplicio
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2012
unless of course, you subscribe to the neuricentric paradigm, like Francis Crick who believes (1994) that consciousness is entirely due to neuronal activity

Of course it is. Brain connections and structture is all there is to it. Try to damage the brain neurons and see how well it works - or not.
brodix
1.3 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2012

Tomorrow becomes yesterday, due to rotation, not the earth moving along 4D from yesterday to tomorrow.
That is using words specific to humans on Earth not actual base properties of the universe. You seem to be having trouble with the concept of BASE PROPERTIES and THE UNIVERSE as opposed to words humans use for intervals of time.>>

Presumably you are a human here on earth. Pardon me if I'm mistaken. I realize science has proven inflation, multiworlds, multiverses, wormholes, expanding spacetime, string theory, etcetc and I'm an idiot for trying to make sense of my little corner of reality. Personally I exist in the present. Things, myself included move about. This creates a changing configuration of this present, as the prior configuration fades away.... If you find that wormhole, come and tell me about it.
simplicio
4.5 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2012
I realize science has proven inflation, multiworlds, multiverses, wormholes, expanding spacetime, string theory, etcetc

Yes for expanding spacetime and other planets, but the other ones you mention is still not proven.
Deathclock
1.3 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2012
Time is a measure of the change caused by movement
Change is a result of movement over time. There is no change without time. Frozen chickens show that can be time without change.


There cannot be time without change... it would be completely indistinguishable, and that would not be a human limitation but an inherent one. If two things are INHERENTLY indistinguishable then they are the same. No time = No change, No change = No time.
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2012
Presumably you are a human here on earth.
I think so. Is Disneyland part of Earth? I can hear the fireworks from there.

I realize science has proven inflation, multiworlds, multiverses, wormholes, expanding spacetime, string theory
So you are not from Earth then. From some alien species that has done that.

Excuse me, we have proved the Universe is expanding.

I'm an idiot for trying to make sense of my little corner of reality
No. But you appeared to say that humans are a basic property of the Universe.

This creates a changing configuration of this present, as the prior configuration fades away.
Normally it doesn't fade it just changes.

If you find that wormhole, come and tell me about it
Why did you mention wormholes? I didn't.

OK that was a strange reply as it didn't to go with anything previous. This is normally called a non-sequitor. In this case I will call AmritSorli induced damage.

The only cure is to stay away from Amrit.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2012
OK here we go again.

There cannot be time without change


There cannot be change without time.

it would be completely indistinguishable
Not relevant as that can't happen due to the Uncertainty Principle.

and that would not be a human limitation but an inherent one.
The Universe does not need us to exist.

If two things are INHERENTLY indistinguishable then they are the same
So then electrons mean we don't have time according to that idea.

No time = No change, No change = No time.


Without time there can be no change. No change in the real world means you didn't look. Change happens. Since that first moment of the Universe there has been change. No change is impossible as that violates the Uncertainty Principle.

I will ask you the same as I ask Sorli:

What do we get from by replacing time with change besides very awkward equations and conversations?

No matter how much you dance around it change occurs in a timelike manner.

Ethelred
Deathclock
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2012
I realize science has proven inflation, multiworlds, multiverses, wormholes, expanding spacetime, string theory, etcetc

Yes for expanding spacetime and other planets, but the other ones you mention is still not proven.


Please don't use the word "proven"... science is not in the business of proof it is in the business of evidence. Proof is almost meaningless when you take it literally, you cannot prove that your entire perception of reality is no an illusion, therefore you cannot prove anything.
Deathclock
1.5 / 5 (10) Apr 20, 2012
There cannot be time without change
There cannot be change without time.


Yes, and I stated this... but the opposite is also true.

it would be completely indistinguishable
Not relevant as that can't happen due to the Uncertainty Principle.


So what? You can't follow a hypothetical?

and that would not be a human limitation but an inherent one.
The Universe does not need us to exist.


What does that mean, I didn't claim anything of the sort...

If two things are INHERENTLY indistinguishable then they are the same
So then electrons mean we don't have time according to that idea.


What? What are you talking about? When I say no change I mean NO change, universally, not just to a particular thing. I'm not talking about electrons, I am saying that if ALL change in the universe ceased then it would be equivalent to and inherently indistinguishable from the cessation of "time".
Deathclock
1 / 5 (7) Apr 20, 2012
Without time there can be no change.


Yes, and without change there can be no time, they are fundamentally linked as one is a measure of the other.

No change in the real world means you didn't look.


When I say "no change" I mean NO CHANGE, if you are taking that to mean "well, there was change, you just didn't look" then you aren't following the argument. Entertain the hypothetical regardless of whether you believe it to be possible (for the record, I know you cannot stop all change, if you did you would not be able to start it again and the universe would cease to exist for all intents and purposes).

Change happens.


I agree, change is what ACTUALLY happens... time is a concept used to measure it.

What do we get from by replacing time with change besides very awkward equations and conversations?


A closer understanding of the true nature of reality, where change is a physical occurrence and time is a measurement of that occurrence.
Deathclock
1 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2012
What do we get from by replacing time with change besides very awkward equations and conversations?


You're right, let's just be dogmatic and maintain the status quo for the hell of it, even when it makes a lot more sense to consider change the thing that is physical and real and "time" the conceptualization of it's measurement.
simplicio
4.5 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2012
Please don't use the word "proven"... science is not in the business of proof it is in the business of evidence. Proof is almost meaningless when you take it literally, you cannot prove that your entire perception of reality is no an illusion, therefore you cannot prove anything.

But of course. I meant proof in common usage terms, not in mathematical sense. I will be more focused next time.
brodix
1.7 / 5 (7) Apr 20, 2012
I realize science has proven inflation, multiworlds, multiverses, wormholes, expanding spacetime, string theory, etcetc

Yes for expanding spacetime and other planets, but the other ones you mention is still not proven.

What has been proven is that a constant speed of light creates correlations between acceleration/gravity and clock rates, bending of light etc. It doesn't necessarily prove the whole blocktime/4th dimension as physically real, spacetime as causation hypothesis. The leap from the mathematical description to the physical hypothesis is similar to the leap made with epicycles, from mathematically describing the patterns of the stars, to assuming they are attached to giant cosmic gear wheels. It is this blocktime assumption that leads to the whole wormholes panpoly. You can't travel to other times, if they get erased by changing configuration of the manifesting energy. Information does get destroyed by the creation of new information.
Gawad
3.3 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2012
I mean NO change, universally, not just to a particular thing. I'm not talking about electrons, I am saying that if ALL change in the universe ceased then it would be equivalent to and inherently indistinguishable from the cessation of "time".

FWIW, I'd like to mention that I actually AGREE with this, DC. It's one of the reasons I've come to believe that space-time is "emergent" (in a similar way to things like temperature, pressure and "solidity") and rather than fundamental. In a deeper sense, that time and space results from the actualization of the fundamental principle of conservation of energy/mass WRT quantum position and momentum. BTW, that doesn't mean S-T is an illusion or that it can go away somehow. So while you could say time and change are synonymous, this also serves to make Eth's point that swapping time for change is a useless shell game. And, importantly, GRAVITY throws a nasty wrench into the picture of your hypothetical static universe, making it impossible.
Terriva
1.1 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2012
And, importantly, GRAVITY throws a nasty wrench into the picture of your hypothetical static universe, making it impossible.
If it does allow the expansion of Universe with increasing speed, why it should prohibit the static Universe?
Gawad
2 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2012
I realize science has proven inflation

There's no proof for inflation whatsoever. Some decent evidence, yes (or for something like it), but also some thorny theoretical problems, such as the inflation field also requiring some fine-tuning.
multiworlds

If you're talking about extra-solar planets, yes, as we even have some direct imaging of at least one of these.
multiverses

No. these are PURE SPECULATION and can most probably never be proven enven in principle.
wormholes

Again, pure speculation.
expanding spacetime

Almost irrefutable at this point, but still not "proof".
string theory

This is a research program. I'm not sure "proof" is really the right concept here.
and I'm an idiot for trying to make sense of my little corner of reality.

Well I'm not sure yet whether you're an idiot or not (unlike with Amrit), but you'd do well to work out the difference between proof and evidence and science fact vs. speculation and outright fiction.
Gawad
4 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2012
And, importantly, GRAVITY throws a nasty wrench into the picture of your hypothetical static universe, making it impossible.
If it does allow the expansion of Universe with increasing speed, why it should prohibit the static Universe?

1st, a static universe is a dead universe, so you couldn't live in one and much less even want to.

2nd, anyone who says that gravity "allow the expansion of Universe with increasing speed" isn't serious, so has yet to make a point. A CC ISN'T gravity, even though it acts against gravity. Dark energy *appears* to be a CC that results from negative pressure, NOT anti-gravity or gravity reversed or any other kind of popular fantasy you care to wave around. So basically, you're not even asking the right question!

Finally, with gravity, even if you were to start with a hypothetical mature STATIC universe, it wouldn't stay that way. You'd immediate have macroscopic bodies FALLING towards each other, or they'd have to ORBIT. Static...NOT!
Terriva
1.1 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2012
Almost irrefutable at this point, but still not "proof".
What we are observing is the red shift, everything else (including the metric expansion of space-time) is the deduction, which violates many other observations in adition.

End of story, this is simply how the science works.
1st, a static universe is a dead universe, so you couldn't live in one and much less even want to.
This is entertaining non-sense. Universe is not a living animal. In addition, static Universe doesn't mean Universe without motion. It allows the galaxies being recycled in full depth, for example. It just lacks the metric expansion of space-time and it explains the red shift with dispersion of light at the density fluctuations of vacuum, that's all. Such a model naturally leads to the even horizon, inflation model, etc..
Gawad
4.5 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2012
Almost irrefutable at this point, but still not "proof".
What we are observing is the red shift, everything else (including the metric expansion of space-time) is the deduction, which violates many other observations in adition.

End of story, this is simply how the science works.


Oh please, take your misrepresentations elsewhere!

There's a lot more to it than just redshifts at this point. In support of Big Bang theory are also the CMB, proportions of primordial elements (H, He and Li), and stellar and galactic evolution.

END OF STORY...until and unless a better story can be demonstrated, which you certainly don't have.
Terriva
1.1 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2012
In support of Big Bang theory are the CMB
NOpe, in Big Bang theory the age of Universe is derived from (the wavelength) of CMBR, not vice-versa. It's circular reasoning.
proportions of primordial elements (H, He and Li)
These proportions are just violated in Big Bang theory. We have lack of Li, excess of heavier elements, like the Tellurium. These data simply don't fit the Big Bang model.
until and unless a better story can be demonstrated, which you certainly don't have
I'm just presenting it. After all, it was just you, who impeached the Big Bang model originally - or not (..there's no proof for inflation whatsoever, "no proof" of expanding space-time, ...). IMO you're just confused.
Gawad
4 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2012
Almost irrefutable at this point, but still not "proof".
What we are observing is the red shift, everything else (including the metric expansion of space-time) is the deduction, which violates many other observations in adition.

End of story, this is simply how the science works.
1st, a static universe is a dead universe, so you couldn't live in one and much less even want to.
This is entertaining non-sense.
No, YOU are boring nonsense. This is old crap that died even before Hoyle.
static Universe doesn't mean Universe without motion.
That's right, it means at the END POINT of all stellar evolution and that's dead, dead, DEAD.
It allows the galaxies being recycled in full depth, for example.
A fantasy with no evidence whatsoever. Please.
it explains the red shift with dispersion of light at the density fluctuations of vacuum. Such a model naturally leads to the even horizon, inflation model, etc..
Yeah, so do hand waving shadow puppets.
Gawad
4 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2012
In support of Big Bang theory are the CMB
NOpe, in Big Bang theory the age of Universe is derived from (the wavelength) of CMBR, not vice-versa. It's circular reasoning.
proportions of primordial elements (H, He and Li)
These proportions are just violated in Big Bang theory. We have lack of Li, excess of heavier elements, like the Tellurium. These data simply don't fit the Big Bang model.
until and unless a better story can be demonstrated, which you certainly don't have
I'm just presenting it. After all, it was just you, who impeached the Big Bang model originally - or not (..there's no proof for inflation whatsoever, "no proof" of expanding space-time, ...). IMO you're just confused.

No, unlike hopelessly delusional crackpots such as yourself, I understand the difference between proof and evidence.

Flying pottery shards anyone? Another one shattered!
Terriva
1 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2012
There's no proof for inflation whatsoever. Some decent evidence, yes (or for something like it), but also some thorny theoretical problems, such as the inflation field also requiring some fine-tuning.
But on the inflation whole the Big Bang model is based (including the proportions of primordial elements H, He and Li). Apparently, you just want to call all models into question (both inflationary, both steady state cosmology) - but which alternative do you actually provide?

You're just a plain negativist - and hopelessly delusional crackpot.
brodix
1.2 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2012
Gawad,
I may well be an idiot, but that statement was entirely facetious. I think the whole information centric/it from bit/measurement is reality physics and all the intellectual cobwebs arising from it, will eventually be viewed as a time consuming detour.
Gawad
3.8 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2012
But on the inflation whole the Big Bang model is based

No you idiot! BB dates from the 30's, inflation from the 80's.
(including the proportions of primordial elements H, He and Li).

No, that predates the 80's too! Get an education, man, or just a clue!
Apparently, you just want to call all models into question-but which alternative do you actually provide?

I wrote Inflation doesn't have the status of PROVEN, so apparently you also need a dictionary. And a course on the BASICS of cosmology.

You're just a plain negativist - and hopelessly delusional crackpot.


Yeah, and the problem with kooks like you is that you keep forgetting that the bullshit you write can be checked out by anyone who reads it. And the time from there to the realization that your BS really is garbage is of rather short order.

You could at least try to be *original* but NO. You recycle the same crap that Hoyle thought up in the 50's. No wonder you believe in a static universe
Gawad
3.5 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2012
Gawad,
I may well be an idiot, but that statement was entirely facetious. I think the whole information centric/it from bit/measurement is reality physics and all the intellectual cobwebs arising from it, will eventually be viewed as a time consuming detour.

Posssibly. You may very well be right about that. In the sixties it was all S-Matrix and all that, which is hardly more than a historical curiosity today. But the thing is that for the last 30 years, fundamental physics has made little progress (at least as compared with the first two thirds of the 20th century), and we know there are big, big pieces seemingly just out of reach. So I hardly think it's a waste of time to explore such avenues, especially when you compare that with all the time and energy that went into string theory, only to culminate in the revelation that, essentially, "anything is possible".
Terriva
1.1 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2012
I wrote Inflation doesn't have the status of PROVEN
When I'm referring to Big Bang model, I'm referring to Standard Model of cosmology. Big Bang model cannot work without inflation, as it leads into inhomogeneous Universe. The calling something "crap" doesn't replace the arguments, it just reveals the religious basis of your thinking. Rational people do argument, only irrational religious crackpots do resort into personal attacks.
No wonder you believe in a static universe
I don't believe in it, I've arguments for it. For example, distant galaxies do appear larger, not smaller, as the expansion model implies.
Terriva
1.3 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2012
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2012
you also appear then to believe that there are no formative forces, dynamics, fundamental attractors, underlying hunan behaviours - consciousness must be an epiphenomenon to you, right?
OK I looked up your babbleword
http://en.wikiped...enomenon

-and found a section on philosophy. I do not recognize your philosophy nor do many prominent scientists and at least one philo - Dennett, who think your words are all worthless at best and at worst, deception.

So lets try some normal words.
The term psychodynamics may well have had an early origin, it still has universal applicability in refering to the Dynamics of the Psyche...Crick who believes (1994) that consciousness is entirely due to neuronal activity
'Consciousness' is fast becoming passe as well. It seems to be residue of the desire to have another kind of a vehicle in which we can travel, if not to heaven, then at least to some metaplace where some essence of ourselves can escape death.
cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 20, 2012
-Because without god there can be no soul. So clever philos conjured up pacifiers like metaphysics and 'consciousness' to wean you all off the traditional hereafter.
Where exactly do you draw the line, the threshold, between thought and science
Uh scientists think, yes?
between conjecture and pragmatism,
uh...
between philosophy and science
Ah I can answer this one. Philosophy is a waste of time. A thing such as Ding an sich doesnt exist, and the lamo philo who thought it up probably knew this.

State-sponsored philos have typically been used as propagandists for specific target groups who could not be manipulated by other means. German philos convinced generations of euros that they had the right to own the world.

Messages such as this need to be delivered in appropriate packages. Kant was selling manifest destiny to people who could pretend to understand what he was talking about, and would throw his nonsense terms around in public like you seem to enjoy doing.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2012
Philosophy is as unfathomable as any religionist doctrine; it is Designed to be so. But instead of things like the trinity and the eucharist for the masses, you have to have epistemology and epiphenomenalism for wordlovers like yourself.

Xian plebs believe god wants them to own the world. Intellectual poets with degrees for every appendage believe Kant wants you to own the world. And live forever. And determine how scientists think and what they ought to be thinking about.

Luckily they can make those decisions for themselves, without having to digest your reems of babble on the nature of free will. Can you imagine a scientist submitting a proposal for funding based upon his 'intuition'?

Ive got 300 words left. When philos of the past have made useful contributions to science they were doing SCIENCE, not philosophy. This is another good dividing line between the 2. Einstein explored philosophy when he was young but, finding nothing he could USE, abandoned the effort.
Gawad
3.6 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2012
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp


Hopscotching from one crackpot site to another to support your delusions won't a scientific claim make; I never said there are no problems or unresolved issues with BB theory. But the static universe model is much worse and utterly discredited. For one thing, no "matter recyling" mechanism that makes any kind of sense (that doesn't require magic) has ever been found, either in theory or in reality.

This is a dead horse that only children who are afraid of the night can't let go of: no crackpot, the world has not always been and will not eternally be the way you wish it to be--as it is now--just because you can't really imagine that things could be other than as you see them over the spark of your life. You're really little differnent from the Godders who need a divinity to give them a reason for morality and to save them from death. Children afraid of the night, the lot of you.
Gawad
3.8 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2012
Big Bang model cannot work without inflation, as it leads into inhomogeneous Universe.

Uncertain: As inflation is not yet a sure bet, and there is theoretical eveidence it *may not* in fact be required for BB cosmology, you are simply barking up the wrong tree. Try to keep up to date, o.k.?
The calling something "crap" doesn't replace the arguments,
When you misrepresent evidence in the hope of pushing fantasies, that's CRAP and you're going to get called on it.
it just reveals the religious basis of your thinking.
Look in the mirror, pal.
Rational people do argument, only irrational religious crackpots do resort into personal attacks.
I'm shattered. (As an asside, you obviously have no idea what really goes on in professional physics, do you!)
For example, distant galaxies...not smaller, as the expansion model implies.

Again, this is MISREPRESENTAION: you're inventing conclusions the authors themselves don't touch on & putting words in their mouth.
baudrunner
1.8 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2012
The idea that nothing can travel faster than light is a misconstruence of the fact that light propagates at the same rate in all inertial frames of reference. Analysis of what happens when an object is travelling at light speed is again with respect to the static frame of reference from which the object has been launched. On board, an astronaut feels as she always (says she)does, all things being relative. Superluminal velocity is the only game in town when you are exploring galaxies.
Terriva
1 / 5 (10) Apr 20, 2012
no "matter recyling" mechanism that makes any kind of sense (that doesn't require magic) has ever been found
This mechanism is very common: the galaxies do condense from dark matter clusters and evaporate into photons and dark matter (neutrinos) again.
you're inventing conclusions the authors themselves don't touch on & putting words in their mouth
You've absolutely NO IDEA, what you're talking about. Your stupidity hurts...:-)
Gawad
4.8 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2012
no "matter recyling" mechanism that makes any kind of sense (that doesn't require magic) has ever been found
This mechanism is very common: the galaxies do condense from dark matter clusters and evaporate into photons and dark matter (neutrinos) again. You've absolutely what you're talking about.
Says the Nth clown to waltz in here who thinks he has a special handle on dark matter and the BB. Wow, get a head check.

Your stupidity hurts...:-)


Then squirm away:

"Because a true galaxy-size increase would be incompatible with standard cosmology, if not with the laws of gravity, our result may indicate the existence of systematical errors, either in the SDSS data set or in the standard correction procedures."

Nothing about expansion there, except in your assumptions, and YOU ARE PUTTING WORDS IN THEIR MOUTH becuse they expect systematic errors to be responsible, as is usually the case. So, like I said, you're full of CRAP. Your stupidity doesn't hurt, it BORES
Tachyon8491
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 20, 2012
Philosophy is as unfathomable as any religionist doctrine; it is Designed to be so.


And that, essentially, is a philosophical conjecture on your part. I do wish you some psychospiritual maturity - it does evolve rather slowly though, so do be patient... No doubt you'll suffer some lexemic and syntagmatic obfuscation along the way ;)
(Ah, do quote that - I bet the non-philosophical fingers are itching already!)
Terriva
1.2 / 5 (12) Apr 20, 2012
Because a true galaxy-size increase would be incompatible with standard cosmology, if not with the laws of gravity, our result may indicate the existence of systematical errors, either in the SDSS data set or in the standard correction procedures.
This is just an example of how contemporary science works: when some effect violating mainstream paradigm is found, it's rather auto-censored out for not to interfere with future grant support. In this way the phenomena like the Universe collapse or the cold fusion are covered not of before layman public, but even before the rest of scientists.

These results are still perfectly valid and the experiment always goes first in physics. Richard P. Feynman: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong".
Terriva
1 / 5 (10) Apr 20, 2012
Of course, if you want to live in lies for the rest of your life, I've absolutely no problem with it - but please, don't try to convince the others about your geniality.
Moebius
1 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2012
some scientists, including Amrit Sorli and Davide Fiscaletti, founders of the Space Life Institute in Slovenia, argue that time exists completely independent from space.


Some physicist's are finally seeing the light. Got banned from you-know-which physics website for espousing this idea a few years ago.
Gawad
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2012
Of course, if you want to live in lies for the rest of your life, I've absolutely no problem with it - but please, don't try to convince the others about your geniality.


Fur christ sake, Alizee/Zephir/etc., the Jigga is up! You give yourself away in so many ways, and at the end of the day...you're still the same 'ol crackpot.

Cold fusion, Aether, static universe...if it's crazy it's got your sockpuppets all over it. Tell me, are you this way just because you're insane, or is there a slightly not crazy part of you that does it because you just enjoy being a little bit contrarian (or a lot)...you know, like most normal kids of a certain age?
Terriva
1 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2012
are you this way just because you're insane

Do you think, the physicists who are dealing with cold fusion are all insane? IMO what is insane instead, is to ignore this energy source in the way, which mainstream physics managed for twenty years. Regarding the static Universe and the dense aether model, it's just another layer of Copernician view to our Universe.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2012
As for time... Isn't it the result of quantum mechanical entropy?
Why yes... it is....


No, because Entropy can be reversed in small systems.

Though the Entropy of the Universe is believed to always increase, the Entropy of sub-systems within the universe can and does decrease.

For your theory to be true, time would literally need to flow backwards within the sub-system.
Russkiycremepuff
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 20, 2012
Am I too late for the party?
Deathclock is correct, in so many words. Time is but an "instrument of measurement" of one event towards the next event. The event is the "change" that differentiates one event from the other, and the "time as a measurement" crosses the boundary from the first event to the next, or the ones after that.
Time is not dimensional as height, width, depth and breadth. It cannot be because time cannot be built in three dimensions as in geometric form. Time is an inherent invention of the human mind to make order out of chaos, and sense out of confusion.
When you speak of time, you generally speak of it as a dimension that has incremental properties. that are finite as nanoseconds, seconds, minutes, hours, days and night, etc. As humans, you have given those properties to time, not merely for your own convenience, but also to account for differences of a global nature.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2012
This is not remarkable due to sun setting in one part of the Earth and sun rising in the other half of the Earth simultaneously. However, the time all over the Earth is the same time without division except for the solar factor. If the Earth had been an orphaned planet drifting in intergalactic space with no star like the Sun nearby, there would be no night and day, only endless night. But the time would still be the same in everywhere on that globe.
The ancient peoples of Earth worshipped the Sun to protect themselves from the Sun going away never to rise again. They feared an endless night and understood that without the Sun, all life on the planet might cease, or at least, those parts of Earth that they knew.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2012
So Earthlings have decided to divide time for their convenience according to what they see in nature that is directly impacted by the Sun and the Cosmos. Then later, after they have invented telescopes and other instruments, they notice that other planets such as Mars have a different time scale, also brought about not only by sunrise and sunset, but by differences in mass, weight, shape, size, orbits, etc.
The time scales used for Earth have to be changed for Mars, Mercury, and all other spheres in the universe.

America has further divided time into "time zones" which can differentiate the amount of time for sundown to begin in the Eastern part of the U.S., with sundown three hours later in California.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2012
Time in every part of the universe is the same, i.e., NULL = ZERO. The Universal time is therefore, NULL or ZERO. No matter where in the universe it is possible for an observer to go, the time stands at zero. This is because time is not a dimension, and therefore is immoveable. Time cannot be a dimension because there is no structure to it as in height, length and width. There is no geometry to time. Mathematically, it is only quantifiable with the help of imagination. True dimensions have geometry and can be measured easily by an observer. But time has no measurable geometry, therefore, one has to be made up and divided into finite blocks.

The logic of dimensional measurements should tell us that the three dimensions are so easily measured due to their observable geometry. But time has no observable geometry except for those imaginary attributes given to it by Earthlings known as scientists. I hope that I have made this understandable, as my English is still not very good.
JaseFlower
1 / 5 (7) Apr 20, 2012
While I never believed time was the "4th" spatial dimension to begin with (who numbered these things?), the math of special relativity can be interpreted as.. "Even standing still, we're moving at the speed of light through Time. As you increase velocity in 3d space, your 4d speed of light magnitude stays the same (c), thus decreasing your velocity through time."

Plus, the nonsense about photon clocks reading differently than atomic clocks is wrong. Put a space ship around those clocks and the observers within the ship won't notice any length contraction or time dilation and -must- measure the speed of light as c in all directions. Michelson-Morley, anyone? Are we back to believing in ether? I call BS.
simplicio
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 20, 2012
Do you think, the physicists who are dealing with cold fusion are all insane? IMO what is insane instead, is to ignore this energy source in the way, which mainstream physics managed for twenty years. Regarding the static Universe and the dense aether model, it's just another layer of Copernician view to our Universe.

I don't see connection between Copernican view and cold fusion?? Or even ether and static universe. These are fantasy things, but Copernican view is not.
simplicio
4.6 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2012
The event is the "change" that differentiates one event from the other, and the "time as a measurement" crosses the boundary from the first event to the next, or the ones after that.

You say nothing here. If you have events then you have change. If you have change then you have time. You are just going round in circles.
Terriva
1 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2012
Time cannot be a dimension because there is no structure to it as in height, length and width. There is no geometry to time.
In dense aether model the space is the 3D foamy analogy of the 2D water surface. The spatial dimensions are represented with directions planparallel with the water surface, the temporal dimensions is perpendicular to it. This model is consistent with the role of time in general relativity, where the time is the remaining dimension of space-time. It's compacted spatial dimension of space-time.

It means, I don't support the Sorli's model and his atemporal Universe has nothing to do with dense aether model, in which the time has always an immanent role of the dual counterpart of space..
Terriva
1 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2012
If you have events then you have change. If you have change then you have time. You are just going round in circles.
Of course, the replacement of time with motion or change is just semantical one, it doesn't bring nothing new into predictions, into understanding of the nature of time the less.
These are fantasy things, but Copernican view is not.
Copernican view is based on extrinsic perspective of the local Universe. From local perspective the water surface appears expanding, because it's surface ripples collapse with distance from every source. From more general perspective the water surface is still without global motion, stationary system: it's the energy waves, what develops in it, not the surface itself.
Terriva
1 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2012
So once again: dense aether model distinguishes intrinsic and extrinsic perspective. From intrinsic perspective the Sun appears revolving the Earth and the Universe is expanding from all places of human observer, which remains privileged in this model. From extrinsic perspective the Earth is revolving the Sun, the Universe is stationary and the light disperses with distance, thus becoming reddish. This model is more general, but more difficult to falsify - after all, in the same way, like the Copernican model of Galileo era. But it doesn't suffer with problems, arising in Big Bang cosmology.
Terriva
1 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2012
Why I do believe in this model? It's simple - because the Universe appears so - you should only know, how to look at it.

At the proximity the observable reality is complex and fractal, with maximal complexity at the distance scale, corresponding the wavelength of CMBR (~ 2 cm). With both increasing, both decreasing distance scale the character of observable reality changes: the random complex objects are changing into regular spheres, driven with simple laws. But if the distance from human observer scale increases even more, then the Universe appears random and fuzzy again.

If we could see only the objects million-times larger or smaller, than the human observer, then the Universe would appear quite funny: it would be composed only from spheres, nothing else. It's very prominent behavior. Now the question simply is - how the Universe should behave for to appear like the spheres at small and large distance scales and like the random fuzzy objects at all another scales?
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2012
The event is the "change" that differentiates one event from the other, and the "time as a measurement" crosses the boundary from the first event to the next, or the ones after that.

You say nothing here. If you have events then you have change. If you have change then you have time. You are just going round in circles.

The event is the "change" that differentiates one event from the other, and the "time as a measurement" crosses the boundary from the first event to the next, or the ones after that.

You say nothing here. If you have events then you have change. If you have change then you have time. You are just going round in circles.
- simplicio

Yes, the event, or events, add up to a "change" in configuration no matter what type of event it may be. A supernova is an event due to a change in the star's configuration. All events that have some sort of change in configuration is still a change for each particular event.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2012
And No, the event is not dependent on time because time is only imaginary and has no definitive structure to it, except the man-made structure assigned to it that is actually nonexistent. Similar to the Prime Meridian, or Zero of Longitude is an imaginary line on Earth. It is only used as a reference point, just as time is used as a reference point to mark the beginning or end of an event, plus the time it takes to get to the next event and ITS change of configuration. Physical structure of universe is not dependent on imaginary time. The structure of universe will continue on its own, even without the constraints or time limits placed on it by humans.
Terriva
1 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2012
Did you heard, at the event horizon of black holes the time and space dimensions switch their positions? The proponents of cyclic Universe are saying the same about Big Bang event.

http://www.aether...part.gif

Without dense aether model such insight is very difficult to imagine, not to say about some timeless model of Amrit Sorli. The AdS/CFT correspondence is based on similar insight: the topological inversion of the space-time, which is behaving like the Klein bottle or Mobius strip here.

It means, you're not required to believe in geometric nature of the space-time - but after then whole areas of modern physics (the topological geometrics in particular) will remain cryptic secret for you.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2012
I started out believing that time has always been and always will be, but that it is and was, independent of any structural mass like a sphere, a gas, a dust, matter or energy. Time has, or is, none of those things. If time has, or is, none of those things, then there is NO physicality to it and, therefore, no physical structure such as all of those spheres, et al, in the visible universe. The measurement of time, as I have said already, measures the changes within parameters of an event that has structure or geometry. If it is 12 noon on your watch and you know it is time for lunch, you will go to get lunch, sometimes even without feeling hungry, simply because you are adapted to that schedule. But a star that is forming out of dust is not going to depend on time to tell it when to start its accretion processes. It just does it without reference points of years or millennia. It may take ten million Earth years for it to complete, there is no sunup or sundown, the time element is moot.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2012
The star begins its accretion process due to "cause and effect" and nothing more. Whatever time that we assign to the process, if we cannot see it happening directly and refer to a timepiece, then time as a dimension is nonexistent for that event.
Time continues on into the future, but you cannot fit it into triangle, put it into a box, or climb up on it. We can only measure time by the ticking of a clock and dividing those ticks into convenient sets.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2012
Two essential questions:

1. how that in existent SR proper time tau of the observer O and proper time tau' of the observer O' are not valid for both of observers ? GPS proves they are.

2. Which is the exact difference between "coordinate time" and "proper time" in SR ?
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2012
I can't find it at the moment but I think someone said there is no evidence of the Universe having an overall angular momentum. IF GR is correct AND the Universe is closed or right on the edge as some think THEN there should be no angular momentum even if the universe should be a black hole with high AM from an outside point of view.

Ethelred
Vinic
1 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2012
This is impossible
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2012
Please don't use the word "proven"... science is not in the business of proof it is in the business of evidence
It is in the business of understanding AND evidence and if possible proof. It is in more than one business.

Proof is almost meaningless when you take it literally
So quit acting like a Creationist. This isn't a Greek geometry problem.

You are letting fear of tiny minds keep you from admitting that things can be proved within the limits of present observation and sometimes even within the limits of ANY reasonable doubt. There is no telling what crap a Creationist or Crank will call a reasonable doubt as they do not know the meaning of the word reason.

Of course
inflation, multiworlds, multiverses, wormholes, expanding spacetime, string theory, etcetc
None of those are proven within a reasonable doubt though expanding spacetime if written as expansion of the Universe is certainly at least close to proven. The red shift sure is clear.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2012
Please don't use the word "proven"... science is not in the business of proof it is in the business of evidence
It is in the business of understanding AND evidence and if possible proof. It is in more than one business.

Proof is almost meaningless when you take it literally
So quit acting like a Creationist. This isn't a Greek geometry problem.

You are letting fear of tiny minds keep you from admitting that things can be proved within the limits of present observation and sometimes even within the limits of ANY reasonable doubt. There is no telling what crap a Creationist or Crank will call a reasonable doubt as they do not know the meaning of the word reason.

Of course
inflation, multiworlds, multiverses, wormholes, expanding spacetime, string theory, etcetc
None of those are proven within a reasonable doubt though expanding spacetime if written as expansion of the Universe is certainly at least close to proven. The red shift sure is clear.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2012
Oops, I double posted. Sorry about that.

Yes, and I stated this... but the opposite is also true.


Not in any normal sense as change is local and time is part of space-time.

"
So what? You can't follow a hypothetical?"

I followed it. Change is local. Time is part of space-time. The hypothetical you used is not relevant to our universe.

What? What are you talking about
An illogical conclusion that the idea of NO CHANGE deserved. All electrons are indistinguishable from each other except for position and velocity and those are Uncertain.

When I say no change I mean NO change, universally, not just to a particular thing.
Yes. And it is a silly hypothetical as it would require a miraculous CHANGE in the Universe.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2012
indistinguishable from the cessation of "time".
It is impossible so it is irrelevant. It is grasping at straws. It is like a Creationist saying the Universe was created two weeks before the creation of Adam with all the parts including photons and neutrinos looking exactly as if the Universe is 13.6 years old but isn't.

Change is local. At present even in the SR sense as no information has ever been transmitted at FTL.

Yes, and without change there can be no time, they are fundamentally linked as one is a measure of the other.
Change has a RATE that is measured against time. Time-space is a constant, change is variable. Yes I meant it CONSTANT. In the form of the rate of movement through space-time is fixed. Faster through space slower through time and the total of the two is always the same in comparison to the Universe at large.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2012
you would not be able to start it again and the universe would cease to exist for all intents and purposes
See you do understand my point that this hypothetical is irrelevant.

I agree, change is what ACTUALLY happens... time is a concept used to measure it.
Time is real as it is part of space-time it is not just a concept.

A closer understanding of the true nature of reality, where change is a physical occurrence and time is a measurement of that occurrence.
Lets see you show how, Amrit sure hasn't and it isn't a closer understanding as far as I can see.

Now if you can manage to fit change-space into equations of elegance then you will have done something. If you just make a bloody great mess as Amrit keeps trying to do you will be straining, that is ignoring Occam's Razor.

You're right, let's just be dogmatic and maintain the status quo for the hell of it,
Horse manure. I am not being dogmatic. I am asking a very reasonable question.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2012
What value is there in this since so far it is just making things more difficult mathematically and thus is a violation of the Occam's Razor concept in the most relevant way.

If it is truly a better way to look at the universe the math should not get uglier as it has done with Amrit when he tries to replace time with change. This time around he has avoided that so maybe he did learn something. He is going on about numerical order of change BUT the order is TIMELIKE and he his thus just engaged a philosophical circle jerk.

even when it makes a lot more sense to consider change the thing that is physical and real and "time" the conceptualization of it's measurement.
Except that it doesn't make more sense and produces awkward math that just tries to hide the timelike nature of change.

Go ahead and try to fix that constant of SPACE-TIME while using change without simply hiding time and doing it awkwardly at that.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2012
Two essential questions
You have been asked essential questions and you are ignoring them. These unessential questions of your are evasions.

What do we get out your ideas? Can you make the math clean instead of ugly if you can't answer the first? If you can't do either, and ignoring this for a entire year implies you can't, why should anyone care what questions you think are essential?

1. how that in existent SR proper time tau of the observer O and proper time tau' of the observer O' are not valid for both of observers ? GPS proves they are.
I don't know how you got that. GPS proves that GR AND SR work. Both are involved in the GPS and two observers GPS equipment use the satellites to run the calculations for themselves and not the other.>>
kvantti
5 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2012
[quote]Light clocks A and B moving horizontally through space. According to length contraction, clock A should tick faster than clock B. In a new study, scientists argue that there is no length contraction, and both clocks should tick at the same rate in accordance with special relativity.[/quote]

As Noumenon already pointed out, this is completely untrue. Length contraction is a part of special relativity, hence there can be no contradiction. Here's the proof:

Let the length of the clocks be L at their rest frame X. Therefore one 'tick' is T = 2L/c. Let the speed of the clocks be v relative to X. According to special relativity, the length of the horizontal clock is

L' = L*(1 - v²/c²)

Therefore one 'tick' of the horizontal clock observed from X is

T' = 2L'/c = 2L*(1 - v²/c²)/c = T/(1 - v²/c²)

The length of the vertical clock does not change, but the photon must travel a greater distance relative to the horizontal clock. The photon path is given by:

cT" = [4L²+(vT")²]

Cont~
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2012
2. Which is the exact difference between "coordinate time" and "proper time" in SR ?
Don't know as there is no absolute coordinate system. Perhaps if you were to give an example of what you are talking about. You seem to have a misunderstanding of obsevers and have forgotten that the GPS uses GR not just SR.

But first tell us why we should replace the present system with something that looks ugly awkward and adds nothing. I say nothing because you have consistently evaded the question of what it adds thus implying there is nothing.

Ethelred
kvantti
5 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2012
Cont~

From where we can derive the length of the 'tick' of the vertical clock observed from X:

T" = [4L²+(vT")²] || ( )²
c²T"² = 4L²+v²T"² || -v²T"² , :c²
T"²-v²T"²/c² = 4L²/c² || 4L²/c² = T²
T"²(1 - v²/c²) = T² || : (1 - v²/c²) , ( )
T" = T/(1 - v²/c²) = T'

Which is same as the 'tick' of the horizontal clock which has undergone length contraction. The authors of the paper are therefore incorrect and their whole research is based on misunderstanding of special relativity.
kvantti
5 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2012

T" = sqrt[4L²+(vT")²] || ( )²
c²T"² = 4L²+v²T"² || -v²T"² , :c²
T"²-v²T"²/c² = 4L²/c² || 4L²/c² = T²
T"²(1 - v²/c²) = T² || : (1 - v²/c²) , sqrt( )
T" = T/sqrt(1 - v²/c²) = T


Damn, the phys.org comment section can't interpret a squareroot-sign...
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2012
Some physicist's are finally seeing the light. Got banned from you-know-which physics website for espousing this idea a few years ago.
Since the evidence is against you and the GPS system uses math that has time and space coupled I think may have earned the banning.

It is fine to have different ideas. But if they are in denial of real evidence, usually that means you are wrong. Especially if the evidence keeps piling up as it does for the fully functioning GPS system. Murry Gell-Man is one of the few whose theory triumphed over the original evidence. And that original evidence did not stand up for any length of time. Quite unlike the GPS system.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2012
JaseFlower the sockpuppet:
Even standing still, we're moving at the speed of light through Time. As you increase velocity in 3d space, your 4d speed of light magnitude stays the same (c), thus decreasing your velocity through time
It is unclear in that post if you disbelieve that as well as time being a 4th dimension. I don't believe its a spatial dimension myself because no one has claimed it is, except you in this post. Its the time part of space-time.

Plus, the nonsense about photon clocks reading differently than atomic clocks is wrong.
Well that would be you again. Clocks are clocks but atomic clocks USE photons so you don't know what you are talking about.

Put a space ship around those clocks and the observers within the ship won't notice any length contraction or time dilation and -must- measure the speed of light as c in all directions.
Yes. And experiments back that up. What is your problem with this?>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2012
Michelson-Morley, anyone? Are we back to believing in ether? I call BS.
I call confused messy post from a sockpuppet that shouldn't be ranking anyone on this thread. Unless this post camouflage for the puppeteer as I suspect it was.

The only real question is are you another Zephir clone, he has downranked himself as a coverup before, or some other person with fondness for sockpuppet downranking. Cardacian/Orac seems a possibility. Frank Herbert maybe?

Ethelred
CardacianNeverid
3.2 / 5 (11) Apr 21, 2012
The only real question is are you another Zephir clone, he has downranked himself as a coverup before, or some other person with fondness for sockpuppet downranking. Cardacian/Orac seems a possibility. Frank Herbert maybe? -Ethel&Lucy

Pissoff Ethel. Unless you're really sure of whom you're accusing of what, keep your damn bazoo shut, else I might accuse you of being Deathclock.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2012
Yes, you told that silly lie before. Make the accusation. Show how idiotic you are.

You are ORAC, only two people have given me ones for using the correct definition of Agnostic. You and Orac. It isn't an accident that you showed up about the same time Orac stopped giving people ones.

Ethelred
bluehigh
2.6 / 5 (14) Apr 21, 2012
Ethelred can be quite a zealot but retains some common sense. Deathclock on the other hand is a certifiable raving nut job with little hope of rehabilitation. CardacianNeverid is of course the lobotomized version of a popular contributor to the comments, though considering the 'bazoo shut' crack, recovery is likely.

Just for the record. Space and time are not and can never be separate aspects of our reality. Our reality exists in space-time. Knock yourselves out with meta-physics or contorted philosophy but you won't alter the fact, unless you can demonstrate either time without space or space without time. Now about that common sense ...

kvantti
5 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2012
Worst pseudoscientific article full of misinformation ever followed by the worst relativity debate ever. Great.
CardacianNeverid
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 21, 2012
Yes, you told that silly lie before. Make the accusation. Show how idiotic you are -EthelTard

No moreso than you, tard boy.

Ethelred can be quite a zealot but retains some common sense. Deathclock on the other hand is a certifiable raving nut job with little hope of rehabilitation -angry

But that's the beauty of play acting, as you well know. My accusation holds as much water as his.
BoxPopuli
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2012
Extreme crank Armpit Sorli posted a new idiocy:

Two essential questions:
1. how that in existent SR proper time tau of the observer O and proper time tau' of the observer O' are not valid for both of observers ?


Proper time is frame invariant.


2. Which is the exact difference between "coordinate time" and "proper time" in SR ?


Read an introductory book and you will learn.
THE_ANTIPHILO
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2012
And that, essentially, is a philosophical conjecture on your part.
No it seems to be the consensus of the scientists who actually bother to consider it.
I do wish you some psychospiritual maturity - it does evolve rather slowly though, so do be patient... No doubt you'll suffer some lexemic and syntagmatic obfuscation blah
No immaturity or rather insecurity is throwing babblewords like tennis balls.

(Ah, do quote that - I bet the non-philosophical fingers are itching already!)
No only the middle one dweeb
JaseFlower the sockpuppet:
I submit that this is noumenon because he is 1rating the erudite and right-thinking otto on his important antiphilo defenestration efforts.
Raygunner
not rated yet Apr 21, 2012
I stopped believing in classic "time" about 15 years ago. I prefer to think of it as space-mass instead of space-time. IMO there is only a "now". Time is purely an illusion reinforced by our circadian rhythms and we have constructed laws to accommodate these beliefs. We see decay and the effects of entropy all around. Our memories of the past and imaginings of the future answer to our human need for "flow", or to see things as a river from the past into the future. The time concept satisfies this need. Time is a useful measurement tool and is absolutely necessary in day-to-day life and to measure events that take place. Discarding time as a physical law also gets rid of all the paradoxes and multiple universes. Especially one concept that an infinite number of universes are created based on our individual decisions moment by moment that consider all possible paths. Please - like the fabric of space really gives a hoot what we do. Occam's Razor applies here for sure! A layman's 2 cents.
kvantti
5 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2012
Discarding time as a physical law also gets rid of all the paradoxes and multiple universes. Especially one concept that an infinite number of universes are created based on our individual decisions moment by moment that consider all possible paths. Please - like the fabric of space really gives a hoot what we do. Occam's Razor applies here for sure! A layman's 2 cents.


Disregarding time gets rid of the paradoxes? What paradoxes? There are no paradoxes in the current accepted theories of physics. You also seem to misinterp the many worlds interpretation. 1) There are no infinite amount of parallel universes, but continuosly increasing amount. 2) Our individual decisions don't branch the multiverse, but rather we find ourself in every possible universe within the multiverse (wherein "free will" is an illusion).
Tachyon8491
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2012
Franco Selleri, Italian Theoretical Physicist and professor at Bari University. Ph.D. cum laude from Bologna University, published more than 200 papers in particle physics, quantum theory, relativity and philosophy of physics.

To paraphrase Selleri: "Inside a Planck volume, time as a numerical order of material change does not exist. Time enters existence at Planck scale. Planck time is the fundamental unit of photon motion at the Planck length."

Of course, there are "dweebs" who would assert that the *philosophy of physics* does not exist with nail-biting tenacity.

It reminds of Bohm's addition of the quantum potential term to the schrodinger equation which solves the single-particle, two-slit interferometry paradox... But of course, there are also those who slaveringly insist that there are no such things as "paradoxes." What an enlightened time we live in!
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2012
Discarding time as a physical law also gets rid of all the paradoxes and multiple universes.
Boy is that wrong. What paradoxes? You have show actual paradoxes to need to get rid of them. There are hypothetically potential paradoxes under some conditions but would you care to give an example of a real experimentally show paradox?

And getting rid of time doesn't get rid of multiple universes. Time as we think of it in every day life doesn't fit well with MU. Time as a numerical order of events, change or not, DOES fit with multiple universes and my be a requirement IF my idea of mathematical principles being the foundation of reality has any merit. And yes I am aware that some people find that so annoying they automatically say it is wrong.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2012
. Especially one concept that an infinite number of universes are created based on our individual decisions moment by moment that consider all possible paths.
Not instantly created. Already existing as time is laid out outside of intra-universe time like the other 3 dimensions of space-time.

Please note the difference between this idea and Zephir's. It may very well be wrong BUT it doesn't seem to violate any known laws AND don't push it in post after post.

Please - like the fabric of space really gives a hoot what we do.
I totally agree. And that actually fits a multiple universe model. At least my version of it.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2012
Occam's Razor applies here for sure! A layman's 2 cents.
Ahm not really. One simple idea covers it all. Whatever is mathematically possible exists. In some universe with the laws that support it. It isn't a very complex idea. Much less messy than the classic version of the Copenhagen model where INTELLIGENT observation collapses the probability wave. Thus requiring the Universe to access the possible intelligence of every cluster of atoms before suffering a devastating wave collapse when it discovers that a hairless ape cut two slits in a sheet of cardboard.

Was that enough contempt directed at the ideas of two brilliant men by a college dropout?

Well sorry but Freud was brilliant as well and he was also full of it.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2012
there are "dweebs" who would assert that the *philosophy of physics* does not exist
There is a difference between the philosophy of physics where the concepts are intended to explore ideas that cannot yet, and may not ever, be tested and the intentional use of obtuse jargon that was meant to keep out those dreadful shopkeeper types that didn't speak Latin, French AND German

If those two ever used the term 'logical positivism' in anything but a derisive manner then I really don't care what they think on physics. Maybe it makes sense in German but in English it sounds like Spock on recreational phamaceuticals

solves the single-particle, two-slit interferometry paradox... But of course, there are also those who slaveringly insist that there are no such things as "paradoxes
There is no paradox in that. It makes complete sense with a probability wave. The only reason it makes no sense to many is they are using the Cophenhagen model that makes a complete muddle of it

Ethelred
Terriva
1 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2012
There is no paradox in that. It makes complete sense with a probability wave. The only reason it makes no sense to many is they are using the Cophenhagen model that makes a complete muddle of it
Anthony Valetini supports this view in most complete way: Is Quantum Mechanics Tried, True, Wildly Successful, and Wrong? IMO the de Broglie's pilot wave interpretation doesn't tell the complete story about quantum mechanics, but it's definitely most realistic perspective of it. And as Couder experiments demonstrated, it has most straightforward connection to the dense aether model: the pilot wave is the wake wave, which massive objects are doing around itself during their motion through elastic vacuum foam.
Tachyon8491
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 22, 2012
@Terriva & ethelred - You both comfortably ignore my mention of Bohm's addition of the quantum potential term, and implicitly allege my subscribing to the copenhagen agreement, which I don't - sure, nice try. Thank you though, for admitting that PHILOSOPHY does exist after all, and exactly that it explores as yet empirically unmodelled reality - when someone therefore suggests an inspection of foundational tenets in a model, you can DEBATE that, you don't have to react with an ad hominem attack. To my mind, ants-philo is an immature, overreactive twit, certainly has no claim to be a scientist - "scientistic" yes, and a heck of a lot to learn. Then of course, interpersonal harmony is just "philosophical." Regards ;)
Terriva
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2012
It reminds of Bohm's addition of the quantum potential term to the schrodinger equation which solves the single-particle, two-slit interferometry paradox.
Which paradox do you mean? The Schrodinger equation solves the double slit experiment even without addition of some quantum potential terms.
Tachyon8491
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 22, 2012
The schrodinger wave equation is founded on superposed probability waves - fine - in regarding a particle as a unitary matter-energy complex which "chooses" one of two slits to go through but leaves interference fringes which appear to indicate that it's gone through both, this is paradoxical. Bohm's QPT addition to the S-equation solves that by modelling that it is the wave-function which explores alternatives while the particle goes through one of them. You can set up an experiment to prove *which* slit the particle actually does go through, but then LOSE all interference effects - this means you can have either exact propagation-path information, or, "exploration-information" - strangely this reminds of heisenberg uncertainty although there seems no direct relation. To quote Bohm (paraphrased,) "The electron, in deriving meaning from its environment, and reacting to it, is doing what humans are doing." This ability, to self-reorganise, actively, to environmental stimulus - cntnd
Tachyon8491
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2012
- where all environmental circumstance and structure acts as stimulus, instead of passive reactivity, appears to be a very basic function of consciousness - certainly what Bohm intended. He was highly respected by Einstein, btw, who asserted that Bohm's work on quantum dynamics was the best he had encountered.
Tachyon8491
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 22, 2012
Bohm's model posits that it is the particle's wave function which "explores" alternative propagation paths, and then the particle chooses one. The Quantum Potential Term has the capacity to catalyse an enormous paradigmn shift in modelling reality at the quantal level.
kvantti
5 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2012
Bohm's model posits that it is the particle's wave function which "explores" alternative propagation paths, and then the particle chooses one. The Quantum Potential Term has the capacity to catalyse an enormous paradigmn shift in modelling reality at the quantal level.
- Tachyon8491


You do realize that Bohm's model posits that the quantum trajectory of a prticle is determined by every other particles relative position in the universe, hence requiring instatenous (FTL) communication between all particles in the universe?

Bohmian mechanics also require hidden variables which violate Bell's inequality - so it isn't consistent with experiments.

Also I don't believe Bohm's non-relativistic pilot-wave interpretation is consistent with the path integral formulation of quantum field theories.
Tachyon8491
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 22, 2012
According to Bohm's Implicate Domain thesis, every particle IS in superluminal, non-local contact with every other - Bohmian quantal consciousness (see my earlier post) implies that it is not "bottom up passive coordination" as in Wolfram-Langton Class IV entities but fundamental consciousness which drives causality - this is then the origin of non-epiphenomenal consciousness. I believe there are plenty of "hidden variables" left to discover - an essentially intrinsic fact of always approximating epistemology. But such is the future. If you have a contrary view, then let's just agree to disagree ;)
Terriva
1 / 5 (8) Apr 22, 2012
I don't believe Bohm's non-relativistic pilot-wave interpretation is consistent with the path integral formulation of quantum field theories
IMO the pilot wave theory not only does the path integral formulation consistent with spreading of energy along different trajectories, but with relativity itself, i.e. with principle of light speed invariance in particular.

Bonus General relativity and how it works - at film from 1923. IMO the understanding of relativity with layman publics and/or even with scientists didn't go way deeper during last ninety years.
Terriva
1 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2012
You do realize that Bohm's model posits that the quantum trajectory of a particle is determined by every other particles relative position in the universe, hence requiring instatenous (FTL) communication between all particles in the universe?
But this is what the Feynman's many path integral approach is about as well. The different paths - many of which may cross the whole Universe in the single moment - must be superluminal too for to remain equivalent. It dense aether theory it follows the Huyghens-Fresnel principle, in which every transverse wave can be expressed as a sum of many longitudinal waves, coming from all directions at the same moment. In water and another particle environments this requirement is fulfilled with the fact, these longitudinal waves are way faster, than the transverse wave, the envelope of which they're supposed to create. Without it both Huyghen's principle, both many paths formalism, both multiple histories of Bohm interpretation couldn't work at all.
andymurphych
1 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2012
As a layman reading all these comments it occurs to me that the "scientific community" can't seem to agree on anything at all and yet we are told they are all in agreement about climate change.

My two "unscientific" cents: Time is measurement, nothing real that can be pointed at, it's an activity!
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (9) Apr 23, 2012
Idea that space-time is a fundamental arena of the universe is preventing physics to discover the bridge between GR and QM.
Massive objects and elementary particles they all move in 3D quantum vacuum where time t we measure with clocks is a numerical order of their motion.
kvantti
5 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2012
But this is what the Feynman's many path integral approach is about as well. The different paths - many of which may cross the whole Universe in the single moment - must be superluminal too for to remain equivalent.


All the superluminal paths cancel each other completely leaving only the probabilities given by the sub-luminally spreading relativistic wave function. Hence the "superluminal paths" are not physical, but in Bohmian mechanics the instatenous interaction between all particles is.

Also I'd assume you'd know that the Bell's inequality strictly forbids any hidden variables in our universe and it has been experimentally confirmed.

Thirdly Bohmian mechanics completely fail to explain many quantum mechanical phenomenon, such as quantum tunneling, the quantum zeno effect (related to tunneling) or the workings of a quantum computer (since in BQM the superposition is not real and the particles always have one single state).
kvantti
5 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2012
As a layman reading all these comments it occurs to me that the "scientific community" can't seem to agree on anything at all and yet we are told they are all in agreement about climate change.
-andymurphych


Please do not confuse phys.org for the "scientific community", since 66% of the commentators are crackpot armchair philosophers who think they got it all figured out despite the fact their beliefs are in contrary to physical evidence - as is the case with our Bohmian friends here - 33% are pompous students who think they understand things better than these crackpots (such as me) and maybe 1% are graduated masters/PhD's who actually know what they are talking about.
kvantti
4.8 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2012
Idea that space-time is a fundamental arena of the universe is preventing physics to discover the bridge between GR and QM.
- Amrit Sorli


Mr. Sorli, your claim that the length contracted clock should run faster and that this violates special relativity is false. I've shown it before in the comments, so let me just copypaste the calculations for you.

The moving length contracted horizontal light clock ticks at a rate (in respect to the clock at rest):

T' = 2L'/c = 2L*sqrt(1 - v²/c²)/c = T/sqrt(1 - v²/c²)

Where L is the rest length of the clock. The vertical clock - which has not undergone length contraction - ticks at the rate:

cT" = sqrt[4L²+(vT")²] || ( )²
c²T"² = 4L²+v²T"² || -v²T"² , :c²
T"²-v²T"²/c² = 4L²/c² || 4L²/c² = T²
T"²(1 - v²/c²) = T² || : (1 - v²/c²) , sqrt( )
T" = T/sqrt(1 - v²/c²) = T'

Which is the same as the 'tick' for the length contracted clock, as it should be according to special relativity.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2012
@Terriva & ethelred - You both comfortably ignore my mention of Bohm's addition of the quantum potential term,
If it has a paradox then it is wrong. There is no paradox in a wave model or a multiple worlds model. I think either way or both as I don't see a way to determine which is correct. I prefer multi worlds because it answers other questions.

, and implicitly allege my subscribing to the copenhagen agreement,
Nonsense. You inferred that.

which I don't - sure, nice try.
You did not mention that before though so any impression that you did is your own fault. Either way YOU think there is a paradox and that means your wrong.

Thank you though, for admitting that PHILOSOPHY does exist after all,
Thank you for not noticing what is abhorrent in the nonsense YOU and Noumenon use in place of philosophy.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2012
you don't have to react with an ad hominem attack.
I have not done that so quit lying about that. Disagreeing with utter nonsense is not a personal attack. It is an attack on the nonsense. Please learn the difference.

To my mind, ants-philo is an immature, overreactive twit, certainly has no claim to be a scientist
Now THAT is an ad hominem. And silly. He never even implied he is a scientist. YOU however have tried to imply you are. Technicians are not scientists. Neither are engineers.

Then of course, interpersonal harmony is just "philosophical." Regards ;)
No. Learn about manners. They are not philosophy. They evolved.

in regarding a particle as a unitary matter-energy complex which "chooses" one of two slits to go through but leaves interference fringes which appear to indicate that it's gone through both
No. That is the Copenhagen model. It isn't the wave model. It goes through both slits and interferes with itself.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2012
he wave-function which explores alternatives
The wave model it enough. The wave travels at the speed of light and it is controlled by boundary conditions. Change the boundary by closing a slit and the wave can only go through on slit. Nothing difficult there. The only thing that makes it hard is the insistence on using a particle model without the multi worlds concept.

this means you can have either exact propagation-path information, or, "exploration-information"
Or multi worlds or a wave model.

He was highly respected by Einstein, btw, who asserted that Bohm's work on quantum dynamics was the best he had encountered.
Which means nothing good for Bohm as Einstein was wrong on QM after his initial work on it.

According to Bohm's Implicate Domain thesis, every particle IS in superluminal, non-local contact with every other
Magic. That is what that is.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2012
Idea that space-time is a fundamental arena of the universe is preventing physics to discover the bridge between GR and QM.
To bad that the model actually works for GR.

where time t we measure with clocks is a numerical order of their motion.
Which is still timelike and the equations remain exactly as the are and any attempt you have made to fit to your change model has made a mess.

So how about you tell us what we get from you model. Not a claim of what we might get if we ignore the math that actually works. SHOW HOW we can get something besides messy math from your idea. To fit QM and GR together requires new mathematics not an attempt to just hide the timelike nature of the way space-time works.

Ethelred
Tachyon8491
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 23, 2012
@ether-red, when referring to ad hominem attach I meant that in general, not you specifically - then again, that shows you hooking on to it usefully in defense of your own sensitivities.

I don't think you could recognise a paradox if it grabbed you by the throat, but if you're happy with your own "total solution" that's great.

Magic, that's what that is.


Strangely, your "many worlds model" which you understand in all its pragmatic reality according to your glib restatement of it, must contain no "magic" at all to you - it's so logically clear to you in all its parametric detail, right? And paradox there, nooooo...

I notice from your profile that you cannot claim any educational expertise, training, or qualification - the only thing appearing there in great detail is a desperate sense of compensating an oversensitive ego.

I would assert that philosophy, in its conjectural modelling and includes theoretical physics considers what has not yet been empirically ascertained.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2012
@ether-red, when referring to ad hominem attach I meant that in general, not you specifically - then again, that shows you hooking on to it usefully in defense of your own sensitivities.
Speaking of ad hominems that was another from you. And the intentional mis-spelling of my name is a favorite of those that are failing on the reason front for a dozen years now. I count coup that way.

I don't think you could recognise a paradox if it grabbed you by the throat,
And another. Based on .. annoyance? Certainly isn't based on what I said. I showed why there was no paradox UNLESS you insist on using a outmoded point of view. There is no signs of any paradoxes in the real world. They are all due to an ill chosen point of view.

but if you're happy with your own "total solution" that's great.
If you happy putting my mouth you can expect my to point it out when you do that. >>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2012
I never claimed a total solution. I simply pointed out that there is no paradox with other points of view and thus they are superior to those that have paradoxes.

Strangely, your "many worlds model" which you understand in all its pragmatic reality according to your glib restatement of it, must contain no "magic" at all to you
No, it doesn't. Its just math and the math has been tested. No paradoxes and thus is superior to any system that produces them.

I notice from your profile that you cannot claim any educational expertise, training, or qualification
I notice none in yours either. I go on what I write here not unsupported claims of qualifications that weren't relevant in any case.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2012
the only thing appearing there in great detail is a desperate sense of compensating an oversensitive ego.
More ad hominems. Nice to know that even you know you can't compete on logic. Now take that the next level and start to learn. Anyone dumb enough to think a flame war is due to 'eversensitive ego' has a lot to learn.

I would assert that philosophy, in its conjectural modelling and includes theoretical physics
OK then, no that is just nonsense. Philosophy does not own physics. Especially the sort that uses nonsense phrases to avoid reasoned discourse.

So when are YOU going to stop replying with nothing but personal attacks and start using that wondrous philosophy you claim to have, In your profile. Anyone can claim to be anything on the Web. One of the people you see in my profile lied about being a scientist.

Ethelred
THE_ANTIPHILO
2.3 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2012
admitting that PHILOSOPHY does exist after all, and exactly that it explores as yet empirically unmodelled reality
So does hogwarts. I haven't been there personally but I have seen pictures (shadows) so I am reasonably confident it exists. It's in Florida somewhere.

Both philosophy and hogwarts are similarly adept at describing reality but at least hogwarts has rides and butterbeer. Do you guys serve refreshments?

Here you go I found some reference material. You may want to consider changing -isms.
http://www.google...ilosophy harry potter&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=8477711067695659721&sa=X&ei=oHmVT6WTH4zoggexx4X1BA&ved=0CD8Q8wIwAw
THE_ANTIPHILO
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2012
So sorry for the bad link. Perhaps something is amiss with the force?
http://www.amazon...12694554
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2012
OK then, no that is just nonsense. Philosophy does not own physics. Especially the sort that uses nonsense phrases to avoid reasoned discourse.
Well I guess philosophy HAS made important contributions to physics. Here is an illuminating example of it's relevance:
http://www.physic...word.pdf
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Apr 23, 2012
All movement exists as present functions. Duration/the time taken, is emergent. ... It is the events being replaced and fading into the past, not the present moving along an extra-dimensional vector. Tomorrow becomes yesterday, due to rotation, not the earth moving along 4D from yesterday to tomorrow.


Both the idea of existence being in the form of three-dimensional objects subject to change (endurantism) and the four-dimensional block with "now" as a highlight moving along the worldline (moving spotlight) suffer from the same problem, in the Twins Paradox, the traveller returns to meeting point but is there some time ahead of the stay-at-home twin. That is one reason why relativity is considered to be a problem for those forms of presentism and instead to favour the block universe philosophy where there is no physical present.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2012
But on the inflation whole the Big Bang model is based (including the proportions of primordial elements H, He and Li).


That is not true, inflation fits a number of tests but in particular is a response to the smoothness of the CMBR and the "horizon problem" related to the similar temperature of widely separated regions. The element abundancies are based on adiabatic expansion and well verified data on interaction cross sections and particle lifetimes.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2012
Two essential questions:

1. how that in existent SR proper time tau of the observer O and proper time tau' of the observer O' are not valid for both of observers?

2. Which is the exact difference between "coordinate time"
and "proper time" in SR ?


The answer is simple if you can think in terms of spacetime being a 4-dimensional manifold. Clocks moving through spacetime measure in the same way that an odometer measures the distance travelled by a car, the result is dependent on the path.

In Newton's view, they should have measured in the same way that am altimeter works in a balloon, it registers the altitude regardless of horizontal movement.

The difference between coordinate and proper time are that proper time is measured along the path, regardless of how it curves due to acceleration. Coordinate time is the difference between the beginning and end events projected onto one specific axis (i.e. the dot product).

Was this supposed to be rhetorical or do you not know?
Tachyon8491
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2012
Some links on why philosophy is important -
http://maartens.h...tant.htm

http://www.import...phy.com/

http://www.mesacc...hil.html

That's just a first-instance selection without much searching.
Philosophy of course includes theoretical physics - I wonder if any respondents here have read "Theoretical Physics" by Kompanyets, a favourite in my library. Of course, conceptual terminology like dialectical materialism and logical positivism don't mean a thing to those who do not know how they have shaped our modes of approach in modelling reality... It shows rather clearly in their scientistic, trite formulations of thought. Thank you, I am actually very secure in my own self-esteem, unlike the overreactive, little egos that feel necessary to attack, instead of debate. As I stated before, interpersonal harmony also has philosophical tenets - it's worth striving for, even though that will be misinterpreted.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2012
Fleetfoot
4.4 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2012
As a layman reading all these comments it occurs to me that the "scientific community" can't seem to agree on anything at all ...


That's because there is virtually no content posted here from anyone in the scientific community, it is mostly cranks who know less than you!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 23, 2012
Some links on why philosophy is unimportant-

Feynman
http://www.youtub...WBcPVPMo

"...philosophy is regarded as a sort of pseudoscience which aspires to progress, but which (by its very nature) can never achieve it; and so it is best abandoned in favor of empirical scientific inquiry. Needless to say, this is not a view that most professional philosophers are particularly fond of or comfortable with, but it does seem to have been the consensus of the Vienna Circle positivists towards more or less all traditional philosophical inquiry..."
http://en.wikiped...orthless

-As well as some more info on that Sokal paper you gave me a 5/5 for posting. Apparently like the editors who published it, you only care that it is sufficiently full of pretty words?
http://en.wikiped...l_affair

-Its greatest merit is that it shows that, at least in some professional circles, philopap is indistinguishable from pure fiction.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 23, 2012
Now your links:

"Maarten Maartensz is an alias of a Dutch logical philosopher and psychologist."
-Hmm bad start. 'Maarten' says; 'Human beings seem to need metaphysical and moral ideas'... implying 'a priori' that the metaphysical is a real thing (it is not) and that philosophy is the source of proper morality (it is NOT). This statement puts philo squarely in the religionist camp (which is what it is)...FAIL

Next link; 'Your philosophy is your worldview, which is a backdrop for all thought and a context for all knowledge.'

??? What does 'Your philosophy' have to do with the academic discipline? Is he saying that personal philosophy has any effect on what is real and what is not? Outrageous...FAIL

Next link; Dr. Dave (Yount), Professor of Comedy "I enjoy making people laugh" -and I am laughing already...

"Philosophy can be used to help convince people that you are right" -Yes of course. Rhetorics. The Ursache. The sociopolitical utility of philosophy, which is all it HAS....FAIL
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2012
A very good example of Rhetorics:
...don't mean a thing to those who do not know how they have shaped our modes of approach in modelling reality... It shows rather clearly in their scientistic, trite formulations of thought.
And if the philo says this in the proper setting, to the proper target audience, and using the proper tone of voice and in the proper context, then it will be accepted as fact.

The scientific method, trite as it is, nevertheless consistantly produces RESULTS, while philosophy continues to produce, as it has always produced, absolutely Nothing of value; except for influence. This is what has made it useful as a sociopolitical Tool.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2012
If the philosophy is so useless, should we read these philosophical blurbs just from you here all the time? If nothing else, you're completely OT with it here, as usually.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2012
If the philosophy is so useless, should we read these philosophical blurbs just from you here all the time? If nothing else, you're completely OT with it here, as usually.
Yoo too Auslander. I usually just ignore you, youre invited to do the same to me. 'Kay?
Terriva
1.6 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2012
OK, but you shouldn't use the philosophy for the disapproval of philosophy, after then...;-) It's no secret for me, you're attracted to the religious and philosophical discussions like fly to honey just because you're not feeling yourself very strong in technical discussions. Even Feynman did the same mistake, when he philosophized about superiority of science over philosophy during substantial part of his books and lectures. Such behavior reveals the hypocritical part of personality: these people refuse the philosophy proclamativelly - but they're using it whenever possible, as it can help them to become more popular and visible. You're like the Dawkins: the atheist, who is obsessed with religion and God more, than many practicing Catholicians.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2012
Perhaps youre right... hey I see many people here treating sorli the same way they tend to treat you. If you at least wrote some papers you might get your own physorg article and some credibility, you know? Just trying to help-

-And its 'bears to honey' and 'flies to shit' just so you know.
Terriva
1 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2012
If you at least wrote some papers you might get your own physorg article and some credibility, you know?
My plans are more far fetched. What I do want is to show the people, how big ignorants they're actually are and to demonstrate the psychosocial mechanisms, which they're forcing them in their short-seeing stance for to avoid this situation for future. For this purpose the single article is not enough, as you cannot defeat the human stupidity with single strike. It's continuous process.

Regarding the Sorli, I'm just embarrassed, because what he proposes is the reductionism of the same kind, which has lead the people from understanding of physical reality to blind acceptation or relativity. I'm proponent of balanced, unbiased stances and the atemporal Universe doesn't fit this paradigm at all, because we cannot separate the space from time. The space is defined just with time, which the information about events requires for its spreading from place to place.
Terriva
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2012
What Mr. Sorli is right in this moment is only the concept of two clocks: these defined with photon spreading in vacuum (in accordance to the SI unit system) and the hardware clocks defined with motion of heavier particles. When vacuum would pass trough dense cloud of dark matter (essentially the neutrinos), these clocks will start going differently, as we already experienced it. http://phys.org/news64.html Of course this difference will affect another physical constants, which not only depend on time (like the Planck constant) but even those dimensionless one, like the fine structure constant. But I do consider this insight orthogonal to Sorli's concept of atemporal space-time: after all, he just adds another time arrow into space-time instead of removal the existing one.
kvantti
not rated yet Apr 24, 2012
-
kvantti
5 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2012
Quantum decision affects results of measurements taken earlier in time
- Terriva


You just shot Bohmian mechanics down yourself, since there is no way BQM can explain any of the delayed choice quantum experiments - which actually support the "consistent histories" and "many worlds" interpretations of quantum mechanics (since copenhagen interpretation makes itself look very silly trying to explain why the interference pattern remerges if the photon path information is lost post-detection).
kvantti
4 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2012
Even Feynman did the same mistake, when he philosophized about superiority of science over philosophy during substantial part of his books and lectures. Such behavior reveals the hypocritical part of personality: these people refuse the philosophy proclamativelly - but they're using it whenever possible, as it can help them to become more popular and visible.


If you'd know any better, Feynman was an empirical instrumentalist and ALWAYS denounced that he had any authority over peoples understanding - or philosophical stance therefore - of reality. All he did was present his findings about quantum electrodynamics in a way that he thought was best.
There is a reason why empirical scientists - especially physicists - don't wan't to mix philosophy with science: to avoid confusion. Philosophical intepretations - of QM for example - do not help people to understand the theory itself (which is through understaning the mathematics of the theory - not through moot ontological argument).
TkClick
1 / 5 (9) Apr 24, 2012
Philosophical intepretations - of QM for example - do not help people to understand the theory itself
The purpose of interpretation is the explanation, why particular mathematical regression of reality is valid. For example, we have Newton's theory of gravity, but this theory is nothing less, nothing more than just numeric regression of distance force dependence. We don't know, why and how this regression works and the formal math cannot help us with it.
casualjoe
1 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2012
Yes it can. It is impossible for us to perceive the true nature of reality. Mathematics is the best tool we have in modelling nature's complexity and does help us with the question, how?
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2012
.. we have Newton's theory of gravity, but this theory is nothing less, nothing more than just numeric regression of distance force dependence. We don't know, why and how this regression works ...


It doesn't work as anything more than an approximation, that's why it was superseded by GR.
Tachyon8491
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2012
If you'd know any better, Feynman was an empirical instrumentalist and ALWAYS denounced that he had any authority over peoples understanding - or philosophical stance therefore - of reality. All he did was present his findings about quantum electrodynamics in a way that he thought was best.


And that of course, was his philosophy...

Ob boy, what seems to be continually missed is that before pragmatic, empirical experimentation and resulting proof/disproof, there are attentional inclinations in dynamics of the psyche, psychodynamics, which shape orientation and approaches in method, depending on accumulated worldview which continually adapts in closer approximation. Psychodynamics precedes philosophy, which precedes methodology, which precedes empirical pragmatism. You cannot "unmix" science and philosophy - it's intrinsically impossible. But I wish those who believe it comfort in their scientistic self-delusive mirages about that. I bow to your superior insight... Regards ;)
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2012
.. cloud of dark matter (essentially the neutrinos)


Neutrinos are relativistic, dark matter is not.

http://phys.org/news64.html


Another crank article, Phys.Org really needs to start checking their contributors. "After all, if the Universe does expand, the process does not only affect the edges, but its entirety. The iridium standard meter rod will also have to become longer after some time."

The length is controlled by EM forces so obviously won't change.

..he just adds another time arrow into space-time instead of removal the existing one.


Not even that, he simply replaces t with "t dt". There is no value is his nonsense whatsoever.
Terriva
1 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2012
It doesn't work as anything more than an approximation, that's why it was superseded by GR.
GR is using inverse square law in its derivation of stress tensor from metric tensor anyway. And it doesn't explain the nature of gravity deeper, than the Newtonian theory did. It just replaces the question: "why matter is attracted to massive bodies?" with question: "why space-time gets curved around massive bodies?".

Does the whole pile of math of general relativity target this question at least a bit? I would say it doesn't.
The length is controlled by EM forces so obviously won't change
This is not so obvious at all. Why the space-time expansion should be constrained just to the space-time OUTSIDE of material particles? Why the massive bodies shouldn't expand accordingly? Apparently, the theory of Universe expansion doesn't target this question at all.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2012
there are attentional inclinations in dynamics of the psyche, psychodynamics, which shape orientation and approaches in method, depending on accumulated worldview which continually adapts in closer approximation.
Bullshit.
You cannot "unmix" science and philosophy
It HAS been unmixed, and progress was the result. You guys keep trying to reclaim science by making it an -ism. Thats funny. If you got it back what would you do with it? A manhattan project to locate the metaphysical? Who would fund that? Bahrain?

There are no philo reference books on laboratory shelves. You have been relegated. Too bad. Latin died; there is no reason to think that your wordy belief system could not evaporate as well.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2012
And that of course, was his philosophy...
And my last post is my philosophy. I am sure you have an -ism to describe it. I was not aware of this -ism when I derived it, as I am sure feynman was not either when he derived his.

Creating -isms to try to keep oneself relevant seems to me a bit parasitic, yes? Was Feynman enlightened when you all informed him that he was actually an -ist of one sort or another? I seriously doubt that knowing what -ism I resembled would convince me that -ismism was worth the effort that you folks want people to think it is.
it's intrinsically impossible.
Reminds me of the tenacity with which barnacles cling to ship hulls. Scientists have figured out how they do this, and have derived useful compounds. Philos think it has something to do with the 'Will' of the little creatures.
kvantti
4 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2012
You cannot "unmix" science and philosophy - it's intrinsically impossible.
- Tachyon8491


The "philosophy of physics" is intrinsically Feynman's empirical instrumentalism. If a single mathematical theory predicts correct results for many different phenomenon and experiments - and contradicts none - then the theory is effectively a correct theory for describing reality and all metaphysical arguments concerning the theory are moot unless you can prove it theoretically (with math) and empirically by experiment.

E.g. in this sense all the interpretations of QM have been irrelevant (for physicists) up to these days, but now it seems such experiments as "delayed choice quantum eraser" and "quantum interrogation computing" have been hinting that the Copenhagen interpretation is false since it can't bridge the gap between decoherence and re-coherence of quantum states.
kvantti
4 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2012
Therefore "mixing extra philosophy" with physical theories is not only irrelevant to the predicting power of the theories - which is the measure how "correct" the theories are - it only confuses the general population who try to grasp an understanding of such theories. Even Occam's razor says "throw away the extra nonsense" and that is a good advice to follow if you want to be a physicist.
Russkiycremepuff
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 24, 2012
Adherents who wax philosophically about science or philosophy itself are simply humanists. Philosophy offers alternatives and non - absolutes to science, rather than only hard evidences which are possible to be refuted in future if errors are made or methodically ambiguous. Scientists may be philosophical when their experiments are unsuccessful. The very view of, if it does not work now, let us try a different tactic or technique, is philosophical. It gives rise to an impetus of "never give up" and "let us try again". I would not throw out philosophical thought just yet. There is still a place for it in science, imo. Hard scientific facts are not philosophical, but prior to the acquisition of those facts, theories and hypotheses abound with some philosophy.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2012
Time has NO discrete quantity of energy proportional in magnitude to the frequency of the radiation it represents, simply because time emits no radiation and no momentum or electric charge. Time can be lost or gained, but only through the perception of a conscious mind as that mind measures time. Space has dimensions but time does not. There is nothing of a physical nature that is dependent on time, not even the growth of plants. Life and growing old are not dependent on time, but only on the causes and effects of the natural flow of the life force. As I grow older, I understand that it is not time that causes me to grow old, but only the natural ebb and flow of environmental effects on all of my cells. On Earth I count my years by the sunrise and sunsets and the natural orbit around the Sun and that is only due to my perception of time going by as I measure it, but time is not a contributor to my aging.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2012
Perhaps on a large rocky planet elsewhere in the universe I might live for 500 Earth years, or a thousand. But I would not be human. Life is dependent on a natural environment and the length of years it gives us, according to what length of time is given to our cells according to environment.
Space/events are separable from time. Time is an illusion which only enables or helps humans to cope with its perceived passage, sometimes impatiently. And yet, it has always been.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2012
It doesn't work as anything more than an approximation, that's why it was superseded by GR.
GR is using inverse square law in its derivation of stress tensor from metric tensor anyway.


Nonsense, gravity is not even a force in GR.

The length is controlled by EM forces so obviously won't change
This is not so obvious at all. Why the space-time expansion should be constrained just to the space-time OUTSIDE of material particles? Why the massive bodies shouldn't expand accordingly? Apparently, the theory of Universe expansion doesn't target this question at all.


Take a steel bar and stretch it by pulling the end with a rubber band. The length would be slightly greater than without the pull, this is Hooke's Law:

http://en.wikiped...%27s_Law

What that article suggested was that the length would continue to increase with time which is nonsense.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2012
Life is dependent on a natural environment and the length of years it gives us, according to what length of time is given to our cells according to environment.


That's a fair way of putting it.

Space/events are separable from time. Time is an illusion which only enables or helps humans to cope with its perceived passage, sometimes impatiently. And yet, it has always been.


That however is wrong. The Earth's orbit looks like a helix around the Sun and your life is a helix around the axis of the Earth due to its rotation when you consider time as a dimension. Your years of life are measured along that curved path, not linearly as independence of time and space would require.
Tachyon8491
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2012
Philos think it has something to do with the 'Will' of the little creatures.
{Ghost of blotto}

In your case, certainly.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2012
It is impossible for us to perceive the true nature of reality. Mathematics is the best tool we have in modeling nature's complexity and does help us with the question, how?

Mathematics will not help you understand the dense aether model anyway. And this model is way deeper than the system of two theories, which the contemporary physics maintains - if nothing else then just because it explains, why we maintain these two theories.
Terriva
1 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2012
GR is using inverse square law in its derivation of stress tensor from metric tensor anyway. Nonsense, gravity is not even a force in GR.
Did I mention, the gravity is force in relativity? I really don't think so.. What general relativity does is, it derives the stress energy tensor from distribution of potential energy around massive body. This distribution is... right, based just on the inverse square law for gravity. This is the way, in which Newton's gravitational constant find its way into Einstein's field equations. Because this constant appears nowhere but inside of Newton's gravitational law, it's origin is quite evident. In this way the general relativity itself is Newtonian gravity based - well, locally.
What that article suggested was that the length would continue to increase with time which is nonsense.
Maybe yes, maybe not - but you didn't prove it. It's just your subjective opinion in this matter - and it will remain so, until you provide some logical proof.
Terriva
1 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2012
Just try to imagine, our solar system would pass through dense cloud of dark matter, full of low energy neutrinos and axions. These particles would make the vacuum literally more dense, both outside, both inside of atoms, because they do interact very slightly with observable matter (and as Feynman once said, "there's a plenty of room at the bottom.."). But how this huge amount of matter would manifest macroscopically?

Well, we can imagine, the more dense vacuum would make the field inside of atoms relatively weaker, the forces which are holding them together would cease down and the material objects would expand a bit - in similar way, like the iridium meter prototypes. Because the light would spread more slowly trough such dense vacuum, the speed of laser clocks would slow down too. In another words, these neutrinos would act similarly, like the relativistic dilatation of time inside of gravity field.
Terriva
1 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2012
The dilatation of iridium prototype is not the only phenomena, which would manifest inside of dense cloud of dark matter. For example, the observable matter would become relatively more lightweight and its gravity constant would cease down. Did we observe it already? Hell yes.. Not only the iridium meter would dilate, but it would become more lightweight too...

The weakening of forces between particles would manifest even across solar system, because the distance between massive bodies would expand too - compare the research of research from Y.H. Sanejouand. All these changes recently observed aren't accidental, as the do share the same sign - the local Universe is becoming more dense and the light is spreading more slowly in it.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012
Life is dependent on a natural environment and the length of years it gives us, according to what length of time is given to our cells according to environment.


That's a fair way of putting it.

Space/events are separable from time. Time is an illusion which only enables or helps humans to cope with its perceived passage, sometimes impatiently. And yet, it has always been.


That however is wrong. The Earth's orbit looks like a helix around the Sun and your life is a helix around the axis of the Earth due to its rotation when you consider time as a dimension. Your years of life are measured along that curved path, not linearly as independence of time and space would require.
- Fleetfoot

No, I do not consider time as another dimension. The length of time that I mentioned is not in a dimensional sense, since time can only be measured by a conscious mind and it is the mind that is dependent on time, not space/events. Events/changes will occur irregardless of
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012
what those changes are and what it is that has been changed. Time has nothing to do with those changes. If there is no one around to measure the time with a clock, the changes will occur in any case and the changes could happen quickly or at a gradual pace. It does not matter which, except for its environment concerns. The curved path is merely the path around the Sun and the daily rotation of the planet. That does not need time to rotate and orbit. Venus and the other planets have different distances around the Sun, and do not depend on time to do so as they move through space in an orderly fashion.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012
I understand that most people prefer to regard time as a fourth dimension because we depend on it as conscious and consciencious life forms (human). Time does exist, but not as a dimension that is coupled with geometry/space/events. If time were a dimension somehow connected to those three, then time could not have existed before the Big Bang and there could not have been a "before", only an "after". There had to be a "before", or there could not be any "after". The time that came "before" the Big Bang, was not tied in with those things that began with Zero, and then inflated outward, along with all the dimensions, matter and energy.
I prefer to consider time as a special "element" that we all need for scheduling purposes.

http://www.newton...omalous/

The link has nothing to do with time, only an anomalous event taking place in space.
ewj
1 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2012
Temporal time just causes us all confusion. The 4 real spatial dimensions are spatial. The universe has no requirement for temporal time. The primary dimension must be the very expansion of the universe around us and through us - thus enabling the space for the other 3 to exist in our invented temporal time. In a book called Absolute Relativity - theory of everything. This primary dimension the author calls 'Ut'. It is expanding at the local rate of 300,000kms which of course limits the velocity of light and also too the causation for baryonic materials as it permits the lawful change to Planks constant.
Origin
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2012
Temporal time just causes us all confusion. The 4 real spatial dimensions are spatial.

Such Universe would be stationary and nothing could move in it. The usage of good common sense would be welcommed here.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2012
Space/events are separable from time. Time is an illusion which only enables or helps humans to cope with its perceived passage, sometimes impatiently. And yet, it has always been.


That however is wrong. The Earth's orbit looks like a helix around the Sun and your life is a helix around the axis of the Earth due to its rotation when you consider time as a dimension. Your years of life are measured along that curved path, not linearly as independence of time and space would require.


No, I do not consider time as another dimension.


I realise that but it isn't a matter of opinion, the nature of time can be discerned from experiments.

The length of time that I mentioned is not in a dimensional sense, since time can only be measured by a conscious mind ...


Physical processes happen at a rate that can be measured by inanimate clocks and the way I described it is how we observe those processes to behave.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Apr 25, 2012
I understand that most people prefer to regard time as a fourth dimension


Actually, most people prefer to think only the present exists but popularity is no indicator of veracity.


http://www.newton...omalous/

The link has nothing to do with time, only an anomalous event taking place in space.


It has now been confirmed to be just the thrust from reflected waste heat. There was an article on it here quite recently.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Apr 25, 2012
GR is using inverse square law in its derivation of stress tensor from metric tensor anyway.
Nonsense, gravity is not even a force in GR.
Did I mention, the gravity is force in relativity? I really don't think so.


You said GR used Newton's inverse square law and only the force is inverse square. You should learn the maths.

What general relativity does is, it derives the stress energy tensor from distribution of potential energy around massive body.


The potential is not inverse square.

This is the way, in which Newton's gravitational constant find its way into Einstein's field equations. Because this constant appears nowhere but inside of Newton's gravitational law, it's origin is quite evident.


Only if you don't understand maths. The gravitational constant is nothing but a conversion factor related to the SI units of mass, length and time. GR is derived without it but we use that factor to convert the results to m/s^2 per kg.
kvantti
5 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2012
What general relativity does is, it derives the stress energy tensor from distribution of potential energy around massive body. This distribution is... right, based just on the inverse square law for gravity.
- Terriva


Untrue. GR derives the stress-energy tensor from the mass-energy density of spacetime and it is not based on the inverse square law at all. Take a look at the Einstein field equations or the stress-energy tensor. Do you see an inverse square of distance somewhere in the equations?

If you can derive the inverse square law of Newtonian physics from GR without letting m-->0, then you may be correct - but this is highly unlikely since it is logically impossible.
Origin
1 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2012
GR derives the stress-energy tensor from the mass-energy density of spacetime
Well, exactly and the mass-energy density of curved spacetime is derived from dependence of potential energy of the object of unitary mass in gravitational field of massive object. And the potential energy of massive object in gravity field cannot be expressed without Newton's law of universal gravitation. After all, the Wikipedia source Mathematics of general relativity explicitely states "where ... G is the gravitational constant, which comes from Newton's law of universal gravitation.". Because the Newton's law of universal gravitation is the only law, which contains the gravitational constant, the source of G term is traceable very easily.
kvantti
not rated yet Apr 25, 2012
Well, exactly and the mass-energy density of curved spacetime is derived from dependence of potential energy of the object of unitary mass in gravitational field of massive object.


What? In it's simplest form the mass-energy density of a spherical stellar body is simply 3(mc²+E)/4pi*r³ where m is the rest mass of the body, E is the total sum of thermal and electromagnetic potential energies of the object and r is the radius. GR has no explicit newtonian gravitational potential energies and is derived without them.
Origin
1 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2012
E is the total sum of thermal and electromagnetic potential energies of the object
And so? The fact, 2nd Kepler law doesn't contain the gravitational constant doesn't mean, it's not driven with gravitational law, because in its derivation from Newton's law this constant gets excluded. But for Potential Energy from the text book "General Relativity" by Woodhouse clearly follows: PE = m_o c^2*\sqrt{1 - 2GM/(rc^2)} where mo is rest mass of the test particle, G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the large gravitational body, c is the speed of light and r is the radius of the test particle from the centre of M. The inverse square law for gravity is quite apparent here.
kvantti
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2012
Because the Newton's law of universal gravitation is the only law, which contains the gravitational constant, the source of G term is traceable very easily.


Nope. It doesn't matter Newton used G first, it is an universal natural constant that, as Fleetfoot said, "is nothing but a conversion factor related to the SI units of mass, length and time. GR is derived without it but we use that factor to convert the results to m/s^2 per kg."

But for Potential Energy from the text book "General Relativity" by Woodhouse clearly follows: PE = m_o c^2*\sqrt{1 - 2GM/(rc^2)} where mo is rest mass of the test particle, G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the large gravitational body, c is the speed of light and r is the radius of the test particle from the centre of M. The inverse square law for gravity is quite apparent here.


...and in Newton's theory of gravitation P_e = G*(mM)/r. Btw. sqrt(rc^2) = sqrt(r)*c (or if you meant sqrt[(rc)^2] it is just rc...)
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2012
GR derives the stress-energy tensor from the mass-energy density of spacetime
Well, exactly and the mass-energy density of curved spacetime is derived from dependence of potential energy ...


No, like any other density, the mass-energy density is the energy (including mass) divided by the volume.

After all, the Wikipedia source Mathematics of general relativity explicitely states "where ... G is the gravitational constant, which comes from Newton's law of universal gravitation.". Because the Newton's law of universal gravitation is the only law, which contains the gravitational constant, the source of G term is traceable very easily.


And there you have a perfect demonstration of how clueless Callippo is on maths, G is a constant like "1 inch = 25.4mm" and appears anywhere you want to convert gravitational units.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2012
.. for Potential Energy from the text book "General Relativity" by Woodhouse clearly follows: PE = m_o c^2*\sqrt{1 - 2GM/(rc^2)} where mo is rest mass of the test particle, G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the large gravitational body, c is the speed of light and r is the radius of the test particle from the centre of M.


The factor 2G/c^2 converts units of radius into units of mass, nothing more. In consistent units, we can say the mass of the Earth is 8.9mm but most non-scientists would find that odd. What matters is the ratio of mass to radius so in consistent units, G is superfluous.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012
G is a constant like "1 inch = 25.4mm"
This is BS, G is not dimensionless constant.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2012
spatial distance = velocity x time
so how time could be spatial distance ?
time is a mathematical sequence (order)of motion in space
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012
If we would live at the water surface, then the time would be the direction perpendicular to the water surface gradient, the direction of which would define the time arrow. We couldn't travel through it, only at small extent given with Brownian noise at the water surface. The travel in time would manifest itself like quantum breathing (non-abelian oscillation): the expansion phase would correspond the travel in time into the past, the shrinking the travel into the future. This breathing mode of quantum oscillations can be observed at the every quantum wave of small particle, the neutrino oscillations in particular are fast paced travels in time dimension back and forth.

In real vacuum, which is formed with tiny foam the situation is similar, just the time is defined with surface gradient of membranes at the surface of quantum foam forming the vacuum. The travel in time would correspond the travel across density gradient of vacuum, which manifest like the gravitational field.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2012
G is a constant like "1 inch = 25.4mm"
This is BS, G is not dimensionless constant.


Of course not, if it was, it wouldn't change the units! It is the exact opposite of "dimensionless".
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2012
spatial distance = velocity x time
so how time could be spatial distance ?


It is not spatial, that is why it has the opposite sign to the spatial terms in the formula for the invariant interval.

time is a mathematical sequence (order)of motion in space


It is not just an ordering, it also quantifies separations so it is a measure. That measure depends on the path taken, not just the linear separation between the end points in one particular direction.

Amrit, this is basic relativity that every undergraduate who looks at the subject should know. It is covered in the "Parable of the Surveyors" which you can find in many places on the web or as Chapter 1 of "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler. If you aren't familiar with this foundation level, I strongly advise you to read this or some other similar level text so that you understand what you are contesting:

http://www.amazon...16723271
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2012
What that article suggested was that the length would continue to increase with time which is nonsense.


Maybe yes, maybe not - but you didn't prove it. It's just your subjective opinion in this matter - and it will remain so, until you provide some logical proof.


The proof has been around since 1660, or 1678 if you couldn't do anagrams in latin. It is Hooke's Law as I said, trivial schoolboy physics. The length of a rod subject to a stress far below the elastic limit is increased in proportion to the tension and it is constant, it doesn't grow with time. Everything else is already stated in the article, just read it for yourself and ask if you need help.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012
When you immerse the material object into dense vacuum, for example into gravity field near black hole, it will undergo the spaghettization and it will swell and expand, until the repulsive forces will not lead into its complete evaporation into accretion radiation. You can interpret the expansion of iridium prototypes as a such mild stage of expansion. The talking about Hooke's Law is completely OT here, as the material is not a subject of some directional mechanical stress.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2012
When you immerse the material object into dense vacuum, for example into gravity field near black hole, it will undergo the spaghettization and it will swell and expand, ... The talking about Hooke's Law is completely OT here, as the material is not a subject of some directional mechanical stress.


Try to find out a little about the subject before posting. Spaghettification elongates an object and thins it at the same time. The stretch factor is the square of the thinning so the volume is unchanged.

The changes are caused by the tidal force as the object nears the gravitating body so at any distance, the amount of change is determined by Hooke's Law up to the point of tensile failure (and this may be outside or inside the event horizon for a black hole).
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Apr 26, 2012
... The talking about Hooke's Law is completely OT here, as the material is not a subject of some directional mechanical stress.


The paper talks about a metal bar increasing in length and that is goverened by Hooke's Law. It's clear you don't follow this even in the aether model so let me explain it for you.

Think of a 1m rod free floating in space. Aether theory said light was waves in a crystalline substance which fills the universe so assume the rod happens to be at rest relative to that. Assume the aether has a temperature which is rising causing it to expand, the Hubble Constant gives 6.5nm per century over the 1m rod.

If the ends were unconnectedand both at rest in the aether, they would move apart at that speed, but an initial speed for one could cancel that out and simple inertia means there would be no force needed to maintain that condition.

(contd.)
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Apr 26, 2012
.. The talking about Hooke's Law is completely OT here, as the material is not a subject of some directional mechanical stress.


If the aether dragged on matter, the planets would not orbit the Sun but would slowly spiral in as they lost orbital energy. That is not seen but we might speculate that there is a small effect beyond our ability to measure. If that were the case, the 6.5nm per century difference in the motion of the aether past the ends of the rod would create a tension in it and then Hooke's Law applies. Of course the value would be ridiculously small but in theory it would be non-zero. My original point still stands, that effect would be constant in time, not cumulative.

In the actual paper, they are not talking about a mythical aether but simply the Hubble expansion. There is no linear space "drag" in GR.
Origin
1 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2012
If the aether dragged on matter, the planets would not orbit the Sun but would slowly spiral in as they lost orbital energy.
This drag corresponds the frame drag (Lense-Thirring drag) of general relativity. Hubble expansion doesn't explain the observed phenomena, which are all of quite recent date. IMO it corresponds the passage of solar system through gravitational shadow of Great rift at the galactic plane and it's connected with undergoing global warming period. Therefore it doesn't affect the path of planets, but it can contribute to the elevated frequency of impacts at the Jupiter and Sun observed in recent time.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2012
If the aether dragged on matter, the planets would not orbit the Sun but would slowly spiral in as they lost orbital energy.
This drag corresponds the frame drag (Lense-Thirring drag) of general relativity. ..


No, the Lense-Thirring effect is actually a torque on a orbiting object, there is nothing like it in the Newtonian model.

What the paper is talking about is linear expansion, purely the Hubble effect.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2012
If the aether dragged on matter, the planets would not orbit the Sun but would slowly spiral in as they lost orbital energy.
This drag corresponds the frame drag (Lense-Thirring drag) of general relativity. Hubble expansion doesn't explain the observed phenomena, which are all of quite recent date. IMO it corresponds the passage of solar system through gravitational shadow of http://en.wikiped...tronomy) of impacts at the Jupiter and Sun observed in recent time.


Origin=another Callipo/Alizee/Zephir/Jigga/Terriva/etc./etc./etc. sockpuppet.

You know, if I were the superstitious type, I'd think someone had actually put a curse on the little guy.
Russkiycremepuff
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2012
In an earlier post, I have said this, "Time cannot truly be quantifiable and is in and of itself. It cannot be controlled by matter, energy or space. Time is not dependent on physical matter or its velocity, nor of dimensional constraints. Time cannot go backward, up or down or sideways. It cannot propel matter, including living matter into the future or the past. Time only exists in the NOW, not later or what came before."

To that statement I wish to add also that gravity (G), as well as all other forces such as C, EM, and Velocity of physical matter and energy are not dependent on the time. All of the forces WILL NOT become stationary without time, and neither will physical matter become stationary without time, as has been suggested, as long as the physical matter is regulated by the forces.
Take any mathematical equation and omit time from it, and momentum will still be true for it, and the result will depend solely on the forces and volume etc that are available to that equation
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2012
In the first paragraph I had forgot to mention the vice versa and that G, C, EM, V and physical matter and energy are ALL INTERDEPENDENT UPON EACH OTHER. They all have dimensionality. But, time is not another dimension. It can be drawn upon in the abstract, but only in a conventional way as humans perceive its quantum. and so the forces and matter that are of dimension cannot be dependent on a non-dimensional. I must admit that it is a seemingly fine line between what our senses perceive to be true, and those which are not.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2012
I have posited what I believe to be true, and although I do not know Mr. Amrit, I do expect that he and his colleagues will continue to explore this very interesting subject. I also wish to add that BEFORE the BB, time did exist also not dimensional. But, in that era, it was a NOW for time, and for every increment of passage, each increment was also a now and not before or after, which is why I regard time as Zero or a Null. It stands at Zero or Null due to its potentiality to become the future. But at any point in the future, it still stands at Zero or Null because it still has an unknown quantity of potentiality. Time has flexibility while it remains static. It is not dynamic, therefore it is not a dimension.
Russkiycremepuff
2.2 / 5 (10) Apr 26, 2012
Finally, I would like to add to my statement about philosophy in a previous comment here. Any attempt to separate philosophy from science is futile and silly. It is what makes us homo sapiens. Monkeys cannot philosophise anything, and that is one of the biggest differences between us and them. One of the arguments I make is that philosophy creates the drive to 1) learn, 2) understand, 3) know, and 4) to want to know more. Philosophy is a continuing education that connects to science because science is always in flux, always changing. And the rationality of philosophy helps us to understand those changes in science. Philosophy gives us the 6 questions of: What; Why; Who; Where; When; and How. Science alone does not. Science only gives us possibilities, such as: Can it; Will it; Could be; Might be; Should be; etc. I read such words in almost every thread in Phys.org and in many science periodicals, and it is most annoying, and which proves that science is still non-absolute and depends
Russkiycremepuff
2.2 / 5 (10) Apr 26, 2012
-cont'd-
on philosophy very much. I would also like to add that truth in science is not always paramount to scientific results and methods. There are many reasons for this less than perfection; but there is the philosophy that truth must be told rather than perpetuate a lie, and if not, then that lie will be exposed eventually that may induce more truth telling in science articles thereafter. I do not impugn all scientists and researchers as liars, but many are wanting in their submissions of actual results.
casualjoe
1 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2012
RCP
Time is not dependent on physical matter or its velocity, nor of dimensional constraints.


While not dependent, the presence of physical matter does have an effect on time, there are many different experiments out there to show this.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2012
No, the Lense-Thirring effect is actually a torque on a orbiting object, there is nothing like it in the Newtonian model.
You can have linear frame drag as well. Linear frame dragging is the similarly inevitable result of the general principle of relativity, applied to linear momentum.
Terriva
1 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2012
The psychics of mainstream science proponents here probably isn't in its best shape, when they're downvoting copy&paste citations from Wikipedia. Their reactions here are apparently defensive. How we can make serious discussion with such religious short-seeing people?

For background reading: You cant convince an idiot of anything.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2012
Finally, I would like to add to my statement about philosophy in a previous comment here. Any attempt to separate philosophy from science is futile and silly.
Perhaps you do not understand what philosophy is.

"I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith. The dogmatism of metaphysics that is the preconception that it is possible to make headway in metaphysics without a previous criticism of pure reason, is the source of all that unbelief, always very dogmatic, which wars against morality." -Kant

Any discipline which includes in its construction the concepts of 'metaphysical' and 'faith' in the religious sense, which is how kant was using the word, is not science and is not compatible WITH science.
Russkiycremepuff
2.2 / 5 (10) Apr 26, 2012
The psychics of mainstream science proponents here probably isn't in its best shape, when they're downvoting copy&paste citations from Wikipedia. Their reactions here are apparently defensive. How we can make serious discussion with such religious short-seeing people?

For background reading: http://stormyscor...iot.html

- Terriva -

Your link to Stormyscorner is an example of cuteness. Stormy's cuteness can be reversed by the other person he is attempting to convince, and his adversary could use the same technique on Stormy. Fortunately, he is not advocating an all out war for hearts and minds; but to change someone's mind is virtually impossible if that mind refuses to be changed, even for the best intentions.
Josep Stalin was convinced that murdering thousands of Russians and others was the right thing to do and no amount of cuteness would have convinced him not. It would not work on my President Putin as well.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2012
How we can make serious discussion with such religious short-seeing people?


It's impossible to have a serious discussion with you because physics is mathematical and you don't talk that language. Even on simple topics like redshift versus dispersion your lack of any technical background means all we can do is continually correct your trivial errors, like not knowing that redshift was a change of frequency, the difference between red and blue shift, or the difference between "frame dragging" and "Stokes drag". Just because they both have the word "drag" in them it doesn't mean they are the same thing.
Tachyon8491
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2012
@ ghost of blotto - yes, perhaps you do not understand WHAT philosophy is - I certainly reject religionism, paradigmatic dogmatism and purely faith-based metaphysical construct. I do not reject epistemology as the conceptual modelling of ontology. That, is in the first instance based in the dynamics of the psyche, psychodynamics, which vectors attentional orientation and processing approaches in the modelling of reality - worldmodelling, this is essentially philosophical and includes theoretical physics - that precedes pragmatic empiricism and experimental, instrumented methodology which is subject to potential falsification. The dynamics of consciousness precede philosophy which precedes experimental methodology and pragmatic empiricism. That's got NOTHING to do with an insecure suspicion that "philosophy wants to "own" science." It's just pure logic. Your tenaceous and persistent dogmatism on this subject reminds of those clingy limpets you mentioned - it's really time to let go.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2012
@ ghost of blotto - yes, perhaps you do not understand WHAT philosophy is - I certainly reject religionism, paradigmatic dogmatism and purely faith-based metaphysical construct.
And yet many many of your equally erudite colleagues do not. And who can tell which is which, and who is who? Because...
I do not reject epistemology as the conceptual modelling of ontology. That, is in the first instance based in the dynamics of the psyche, psychodynamics, which vectors attentional orientation and processing approaches in the modelling of reality - worldmodelling, this is essentially philosophical and includes theoretical physics - that precedes pragmatic empiricism and experimental, instrumented methodology which is subject to potential falsification. The dynamics of consciousness precede philosophy which precedes experimental methodology and pragmatic empiricism blah
...you all talk like THIS.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2012
Might I suggest you explore this estuary?
http://en.wikiped...ilosophy

-As I understand it they had to abandon the pursuit - too revealing-

Or you could check out this chap:
http://en.wikiped...r_Cousin

-I didnt read the article but he does have the stare doesnt he? I am sure he knew what he was talking about.
Tachyon8491
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2012
@ghost of blotto. Hmmm, yes, "blah" is presently the best reflection of your dogmatic, regressive cycling around the same redundancy. "Blah" is the perfect reflection of the immature stupidity that you tenaciously insist on flashing. You began this all with an ad hominem attack, instead of amenable examination, willingness to debate, or just contradiction. I certainly won't turn the other cheek to a limpet like you. But do carry on with "blah" - it's very scientific on your part. You are selectively biased in all your dilletantic, reactive self-exposure. I don't think you are at all capable of a rational debate, but then I'm not particularly attracted to dogmatic, stupid and immature company like yours - I prefer scientists and theoreticists with whom I have frequent enlightening discourse.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2012
Re the 'Ordinary Language Philosophy' (an oxymoron?) article:

"...most of them were largely unaffected by Wittgensteins later ideas, and some were actively hostile to them" -Well of course they were. Arent they always?

"language ought to be reformulated so as to be unambiguous..." -Ah. So we just dont talk right. I guess this is why scientists use numbers instead of words eh? More appropriate.

"Wittgenstein would later describe his task as bringing "words back from their metaphysical to their everyday use"." -This would be some feat. Who was it that walked out of hades? I forget.

"It is now not uncommon to hear that "ordinary language philosophy is dead"" -Huh. So this is where hawking got the notion. Well I guess you will just have to wait for the next big -ism. Or make one up yourself. Or resurrect something that people have forgotten why it died off.

Hey this is pretty popular:
http://www.steamp...eampunk/

Terriva
1 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2012
It's impossible to have a serious discussion with you because physics is mathematical and you don't talk that language.
My physics is logical and this is exactly what the formal approach in mainstream science is missing. We have many theories but no logics behind them - everything is based on ad-hoced postulates.
like not knowing that redshift was a change of frequency, the difference between red and blue shift, or the difference between "frame dragging" and "Stokes drag"
Blah, blah.. :-) Do you really have some relevant counterargument or you're just trying ad ridicule fallacy with the other readers of this thread?

You even cannot argument coherently and logically - how do you want to teach me the logics or math after then?
Terriva
1 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2012
What I do know or not is completely irrelevant. Try to disprove my proposal, that the red shift is a product of light dispersion with vacuum fluctuations analogous to the dispersion of ripples at the water surface - and not the result of omni-directional space-time expansion.

Go ahead - and don't forget: what you think about ME is completely OT and irrelevant to the subject. My person or qualification is completely and utterly irrelevant to the tired light hypothesis and every else socratic discussion. If you cannot understand it, then you probably cannot understand any of my arguments, being a religious subjectivistic idiot. Don't try to ridicule me next time or I'll make an imbecile from you instead.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2012
Or resurrect something that people have forgotten why it died off.
Ye gads, does this mean that the field could come back to life even though hawking killed it off? Drat. But then that is what every philo gen does in order to maintain the illusion of progress isnt it?

Hey I just had an Eureka moment (The moment of a sudden unexpected discovery.) Why not write a book called 'The Philosophy of Steampunk' -? Be good rather than original.

Aw shit
http://www.uncley...eampunk/

-Too obvious I guess.
Russkiycremepuff
2.2 / 5 (10) Apr 26, 2012
You seem to be a purist, leaving no room for both, only one or the other.
As I have said in an earlier post, "One of the arguments I make is that philosophy creates the drive to 1) learn, 2) understand, 3) know, and 4) to want to know more. Philosophy is a continuing education that connects to science because science is always in flux, always changing. And the rationality of philosophy helps us to understand those changes in science. Philosophy gives us the 6 questions of: What; Why; Who; Where; When; and How. Science alone does not. Science only gives us possibilities, such as: Can it; Will it; Could be; Might be; Should be; etc. "
Terriva
1 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2012
Without data the philosophy is not competent to answer any such a question. With the data it's not philosophy anymore, but a normal "hard" science. The conclusion is, the philosophy must remain incompetent for not to lose its subject at all.
Russkiycremepuff
2.2 / 5 (10) Apr 26, 2012
Firstly, morality is a part of philosophy, but metaphysics of itself is not. Meiklejohn renders Kant's text in this way, "I must, therefore, abolish knowledge to make room for belief.", while Muller translates it as, "I had therefore to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith." The term "knowledge" is in both translations from German, but faith and belief are two different meanings within the same context. Faith, in a metaphysical sense does not necessarily mean a belief in something. I can have faith in God, and yet not believe that he will care very much about my welfare or the welfare of everyone else. If I believe that he will come down from heaven on a white horse and slay all the wicked people, I may be wrong, and therefore, my belief is not well placed or warranted. But that is not to say that my "faith" is not well founded, since faith has potential.
Russkiycremepuff
2.2 / 5 (10) Apr 26, 2012
Kant tells us that knowledge is either scientific or a "merely random groping." He then tells us that metaphysics is in the latter category, unlike logic, math and physics, which have entered the "sure path of a science." He wants metaphysics to enter that sure path; that is, he wants it to be a science rather than a "merely random groping." How is this to be achieved? By looking at those disciplines that have already found the "sure path of a science" and asking, "what is their key to success?" However, metaphysics in itself cannot be a science due to its inability to produce cold, hard facts. It may have the potential to do so, but at this time, it is based only on belief and belief is unscientific unless founded on incontrovertible evidence. Philosophy is not based on belief or faith. It is more of a "promise"
It is a cornerstone from which knowledge is supported and gives rise to the potentiality of all knowledge.
Russkiycremepuff
2.2 / 5 (10) Apr 26, 2012
As I have said, ""philosophy creates the drive to 1) learn, 2) to understand, 3) to know, and 4) to want to know more. Philosophy is also a continuance of education that connects to science because science is always in flux, always changing. And the rationality of philosophy helps us to understand those changes in science and what to do about it.

Kant mistakenly felt he had to choose one over the other; science over faith to procure knowledge. But faith is often mistaken for belief, although the two are quite different. Faith is not limiting itself to events or occurrences; while belief does. Belief in an afterlife is a certainty of its existence; but faith is merely hope in its existence. It is possible to have faith and also procure knowledge of science.
Russkiycremepuff
2.2 / 5 (10) Apr 26, 2012
Science is a tool that is unlimited in its use. It is the road to attain the perfect knowledge of all things. I, as a man with faith in existence of supreme being, recognise the importance of faith. My faith has potential of realisation if it does not falter and God's existence proves to be true. But on the other hand, I do not have a belief in the metaphysical which is and remains unvalidated. I do not consider my faith in God as aspect of metaphysical presence belief.
My grandparents had the faith, but they did not know such a thing as metaphysics. We were not allowed to even talk to the priests who were outside of church. I was taught belief in Communism, but my faith was with God. Belief in one that was supposedly progressive, and faith in unseeable concept. We survived the hard times on faith alone.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2012
RCP
Time is not dependent on physical matter or its velocity, nor of dimensional constraints.


While not dependent, the presence of physical matter does have an effect on time, there are many different experiments out there to show this.
- casualjoe -

Neither is physical matter or its velocity dependent on time. The mass, size, and amount of gravitational force of the matter as the cause may affect the steady forward flow of time, but only on a temporary basis. Time stands as Zero or Null everywhere in the universe and everything else has dimension. We cannot go back in time, only forward. If time were a dimension, then it could possibly flow backwards, BUT only if it had memory capability to reverse itself to the previous level. For that to happen, the "space" and all matter, etc. that has moved on will have to return to the same as though it had never left and, quite so, it indeed had never left.
Russkiycremepuff
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 27, 2012
That could be considered a paradox of time and space. That is another reason why I do not believe in time as dimension. There would be paradoxes everywhere with the perfect causes and effects. We would be walking backwards and stars that had gone supernova would reverse back to star.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2012
If time would be a physical dimension than one have to explain how this dimension influences mechanism of clocks so that they change their rate. No one was able to explain that yet.
In our view rate of clocks is influenced by the energy density of quantum vacuum which depends on the presence of mass in GR and in SR on the velocity of a given inertial system O' regarding stationary system O.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2012
If time would be a physical dimension than one have to explain how this dimension influences mechanism of clocks so that they change their rate. No one was able to explain that yet.


In relativity, real clocks produce a fixed rate of ticks per unit of proper time regardless of their motion through space. They measure time in the same way that the odometer in your car measures distance, the length of a worldline depends on its path through the 4-dimensional manifold.

If you project the ticks of a clock onto the worldline of another clock using the vector dot product, the projected ticks will be spaced more widely than those of the clock onto which you are projecting creating the effect known as "time dilation".

Again, this explanation is simple undergraduate material and has been known for over a century.

I do appreciate that you have taken the trouble to respond to this discussion, thank you for that.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2012
If time would be a physical dimension than one have to explain how this dimension influences mechanism of clocks so that they change their rate. No one was able to explain that yet.


This page discusses Minkowski's geometric explanation:

http://www.relati...ry.shtml

There is also a Wikipedia article with further references here:

http://en.wikiped...ki_space

In our view rate of clocks is influenced by .. the velocity of a given inertial system O' regarding stationary system O.


That is simply Lorentz's aether-based interpretation of the phenomena and again has been known for over a century.
casualjoe
not rated yet Apr 27, 2012
If time were a dimension, then it could possibly flow backwards

Good point. Time may not be a dimensional but time is still unified with matter via a mutual existence in this universe. This draws many parallels with the fact that matter cannot gain energy in a closed system.
Origin
1 / 5 (8) Apr 27, 2012
If time were a dimension, then it could possibly flow backwards
And it actually does - one half of Universe bellow human/CMBR scale (~ 2 cm wavelength) appears expanding, but the other half of Universe above this scale is collapsing due the gravity. We're experiencing two reversible entropic time arrows here.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Apr 27, 2012
.. stars that had gone supernova would reverse back to star.


You are forgetting the laws of thermodynamics.

Other than that, derivation of the conservation of energy via Noether's First Theorem is based on the symmetry of time.
Tachyon8491
2 / 5 (12) Apr 27, 2012
The simple xyz cartesian coordinate system is easily understood as 3-dim extension into space in orthogonal axes - time can be accepted as acting "orthogonally" to 3-dim space-extension acting as an extra dimension, xyzt where the 4-dim system is subject to GR and SR. Minkowski was correct in his perception that time and space cannot be separated and have to be treated as a spacetime composite. The question as to which is primary and "induces" the other is perhaps much like asking to differentiate "money" and "value" - where money is a measurement of value - or is value, a measurement of money... We understand that money is the physicalisation of value - potential into actuality - is there an analogising mechanism between time and space where space in its appointable ontological attributibility as energy-matter complexes, is the physicalisation of an inattributable potential?
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2012
It's impossible to have a serious discussion with you because physics is mathematical and you don't talk that language.
My physics is logical and this is exactly what the formal approach in mainstream science is missing.


The logic is built into the equations by virtue of their having to be self-consistent. You won't see that until you learn the language.

like not knowing that redshift was a change of frequency, the difference between red and blue shift, or the difference between "frame dragging" and "Stokes drag"
Blah, blah.. :-) Do you really have some relevant counterargument or you're just trying http://en.wikiped...ridicule with the other readers of this thread?

You are as ignorant of my middle name as I am of yours. That is not ridicule, just a statement of fact regarding absence of specific knowledge on both our parts. Your lack of knowledge of basic physics is a major impediment to serious conversation on the subject.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2012
.. what you think about ME is completely OT and irrelevant to the subject. My person or qualification is completely and utterly irrelevant to the tired light hypothesis .. What I do know or not is completely irrelevant.


I agree entirely, your character is of no concern and neither is mine, however what you know or not is very relevant.

Try to disprove my proposal, that the red shift is a product of light dispersion with vacuum fluctuations analogous to the dispersion of ripples at the water surface ...


"Dispersion" means that ripples launched with frequency f1 arrive with the frequency f1 and ripples of frequency f2 arrive with frequency f2 but they travel at different speeds.

A redshift factor z means that ripples launched with frequency f1 will arrive with frequency f2 characterised by the factor z defined by

z = f1/f2 - 1

Clearly they are not analogous and the fact that you don't know what phenomena the words describe is relevant.
Origin
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 27, 2012
If you have no matter-of-fact arguments against tired light model of red shift, I wouldn't expect any further conversation with you as well - no matter, in which way you're trying to argue it. I do care just about arguments - not about analysis of the qualification of the members of this forum.

You have arguments - or you haven't. That's all.
"Dispersion" means that ripples launched with frequency f1 arrive with the frequency f1 and ripples of frequency f2 arrive with frequency f2 but they travel at different speeds.
During dispersion the speed of waves can change as well. The change of speed will be perceived as a change of frequency from intrinsic perspective of the observer, who is using the same waves as a measure of time. The duality of both perspectives is what is characteristic for dense aether model.
Origin
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2012
From outside perspective the frequency of ripples doesn't change, what changes is their speed. But when we would use these ripples as a measure of the space-time, then the same waves cannot change their speed - which is invariant in this perspective by its very definition - what will change will be the frequency of light.

For example, the gravitational lensing of black holes can be perceived in two dual ways as well. From extrinsic perspective the space-time remains flat and what is changing is the speed and direction of light waves. This perspective is quite common and everyone imagines the gravitational lensing in this way. Unfortunately, this perspective is not consistent with general relativity, in which it's the space-time, which gets curved - not the path of light. The relativity clearly says, the light speed is invariant, so that the light always travels along straight path trough space-time and it cannot be refracted. What is changing is the frequency of light, after then.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2012
If you have no matter-of-fact arguments against tired light model of red shift


There is ample evidence against it but first you need to understand what the term "redshift" means.

"Dispersion" means that ripples launched with frequency f1 arrive with the frequency f1 and ripples of frequency f2 arrive with frequency f2 but they travel at different speeds.
During dispersion the speed of waves can change as well.


No, the term "dispersion" specifically means they travel at a speed which depends on the frequency but since the frequency doesn't change, the speed doesn't change either.

These are two independent and quite different effects. The evidence that rules out Tired Light will not make sense to you if you think the term refers to speeds when it actually refers to a change of frequency.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2012
From outside perspective the frequency of ripples doesn't change, what changes is their speed. But when we would use these ripples as a measure of the space-time, then the same waves cannot change their speed - which is invariant in this perspective by its very definition - what will change will be the frequency of light.


The frequency from the perspective of the source galaxy is the same as produced by the same atoms here. The frequency we receive is reduced compared to that, similar to the Doppler Effect.

The local speed of light anywhere is determined by the local refractive index, it determines the wavelength as a function of frequency but it cannot alter the frequency.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2012
@Russkiy

Most of what you are saying about philosophy is rubbish. And I have only read a little of what you wrote.
However, metaphysics in itself cannot be a science due to its inability to produce cold, hard facts.
No, It cannot be a science as it does not exist.
It may have the potential to do so, but at this time, it is based only on belief and belief is unscientific unless founded on incontrovertible evidence. Philosophy is not based on belief or faith. It is more of a "promise"
So is a baldfaced lie. So is life in the hereafter. The more science learns, the more of philosophy is proven to be false. And yet philos persist in acting as if knowledge of the world can be derived from just talking about it. It cannot.
It is a cornerstone from which knowledge is supported and gives rise to the potentiality of all knowledge.
...And so how can you say it is a cornerstone and at the same time say it is unscientific? Metaphysical = philosophy = poetry; dance music.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2012
Firstly, morality is a part of philosophy
No it is completely physical. It is evolutionary. Science tells us this. We were selected for it.

"There can be no doubt that a tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to give aid to each other and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection (Darwin, 1871)
http://rechten.el...RID2.pdf
Kant tells us that knowledge is either scientific or a "merely random groping." He then tells us that blah
Kant also tells us that belief in god trumps knowledge. Kant tells us that there is some thing called Ding an sich.

Kant was a charlatan and a propagandist. From what science has learned since kant wrote his poetry we can confidently dismiss most everything he had to say.
Terriva
1 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2012
The frequency we receive is reduced compared to that, similar to the Doppler Effect.
OK, the source of light shinning in gravity well appears reddish because gravitational red shift. This red-shift appears like the Doppler effect, but nothing actually moves here.

Now the question is, why do you want to interpret the Hubble red shift as a Doppler effect of space-time expansion? The origin of this red shift may be exactly the same: a gravitational red shift.

There is ample evidence against it but first you need to understand what the term "redshift" means.
This is unscientific subjectivism: my understanding of whatever has absolutely nothing to do with the objective existence of matter-of-fact arguments against tired light hypothesis. When you're supposed to provide such an arguments, I'm not obliged to understand anything. It's up to other readers to decide, whether your arguments are relevant, it's actually not my business neither.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2012
The local speed of light anywhere is determined by the local refractive index, it determines the wavelength as a function of frequency but it cannot alter the frequency.
The refraction index of the vacuum inside of the gravitational lens is apparently higher than one. Does it mean, the light is spreading more slowly through such a vacuum?
Tachyon8491
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 27, 2012
Kant was a charlatan and a propagandist.
- the ghost of blotto - who clearly suffers from the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Consequently: from what science has learned since the ghost of blotto wrote his poetry we can confidently dismiss most everything he has to say.

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
- Isaac Asimov

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin

Scientifically modelled, one wonders why low intellectual calibre is selected for, philosophically however, that's not a conundrum, in practice you need a whole lot of sperm to catalyse just one fertilisation.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Apr 28, 2012
There is ample evidence against it but first you need to understand what the term "redshift" means.
This is unscientific subjectivism: my understanding of whatever has absolutely nothing to do with the objective existence of matter-of-fact arguments against tired light hypothesis. When you're supposed to provide such an arguments, I'm not obliged to understand anything.


If "redshift" means "change of frequency" to me but "change of speed" to you, any arguments I produce will seem irrelevant to you even if they are perfectly valid from my point of view. Terms like "redshift" are only useful if they carry the same meaning for both of us, that is the basis of language.

There need be nothing subjective involved, we can agree to both use a definition from a third-party glossary and as long as we agree the same definition, we can have a meaningful conversation. As long as our definitions differ, there will only be confusion.
Fleetfoot
3 / 5 (2) Apr 28, 2012
There need be nothing subjective involved, we can agree to both use a definition from a third-party glossary and as long as we agree the same definition, we can have a meaningful conversation.


This Wiki page shows the definition I am using:

http://en.wikiped...retation

In particular, the top right cell in the table matches the formula Igave previously of:

z = f1/f2 - 1

The same page includes this example of light from a distant supercluster:

http://en.wikiped...hift.png

If you have a different meaning for "redshift", by all means define it so we understand each other before proceeding.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2012
If "redshift" means "change of frequency" to me but "change of speed" to you, any arguments I produce will seem irrelevant to you even if they are perfectly valid from my point of view.
What I'm trying to explain you is, the red shift can be interpreted in two dual ways from intrinsic and extrinsic perspectives. The dense aether model doesn't oppose the red shift, it even allows the perspective, in which this red shift is explained with metric expansion of space-time. But this perspective has nothing to do with general relativity, in which the red-shift is a product of dilatation of time in stationary space-time, so that the relativity shouldn't be applied to Hubble red shift. The water surface analogy of space-time explains, the metric expansion of space-time is relative and observer dependent, which leads into Einstein expansion paradox: Space expands globally although it nowhere expands.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2012
@Tackyawn

Re your nice quotes:

"You been tellin' me you're a genius
Since you were seventeen
In all the time I've known you
I still don't know what you mean
The weekend at the college
Didn't turn out like you planned
The things that pass for knowledge
I can't understand"
-Steely Dan

-So much to unlearn.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Apr 28, 2012
If "redshift" means "change of frequency" to me but "change of speed" to you, any arguments I produce will seem irrelevant ...
What I'm trying to explain you is, the red shift can be interpreted in two dual ways from intrinsic and extrinsic perspectives. ...


What I am saying is that there is no point attempting to discuss interpretations until we first agree what it is that is being interpreted. The word "redshift" refers to a difference of frequency between locally produced spectral lines and those observed from distant sources.

The dense aether model doesn't oppose the red shift .. in which this red shift is explained with metric expansion of space-time.


Your aether model is nothing more than that of Lorentz hence it is at best equivalent to SR and has no way to model expansion, it is not a metric theory. There is no explanation for redshift in LET other than Doppler.

I intend to return to the Doppler topic once you agree what "redshift" means.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2012
There is no explanation for redshift in LET other than Doppler.
The dense aether model explains the Hubble red shift with dispersion of light at the density fluctuations, which do manifest itself like the CMBR noise. The change of light wavelenth during light dispersion is very common phenomena and we all know, that the vacuum cannot be fully homogeneous, because it exhibits the CMBR noise. So that the only question is, how such dispersion would manifest at wast cosmological distances? We actually cannot avoid such a mechanism at all - if we would ignore it, then the vacuum would become the only inhomogeneous environment, which doesn't change the wavelength of light during its spreading at large distance.

Which would be pretty strange, wouldn't it? If we wouldn't observe the Hubble red shift, we should find it anyway.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Apr 28, 2012
There is no explanation for redshift in LET other than Doppler.
The dense aether model explains the Hubble red shift with dispersion ... The change of light wavelenth during light dispersion is very common phenomena


Again, this is where your inability to agree simple terms gets in the way of any serious conversation. "Dispersion" is a term that describes the dependence of speed on frequency, it does NOT cause a change of frequency and it does NOT cause a change of wavelength, what is received is the same as was transmitted.

http://en.wikiped...(optics)

Russkiycremepuff
2.2 / 5 (10) Apr 28, 2012
"...And so how can you say it is a cornerstone and at the same time say it is unscientific? Metaphysical = philosophy = poetry; dance music."
- Ghost of otto -

Philosophy is not metaphysics. I thought I had made that clear when I said that "metaphysics in itself cannot be a science due to its inability to produce cold, hard facts. It may have the potential to do so, but at this time, it is based only on belief and belief is unscientific unless founded on incontrovertible evidence. Philosophy is not based on belief or faith. It is more of a "promise"
It is a cornerstone from which knowledge is supported and gives rise to the potentiality of all knowledge."
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2012
The cornerstone I refer to with such certainty, is Philosophy. It supports science in the pursuit of, and the procurement of knowledge. I never said that philosophy has anything to do with metaphysics as a major or minor part of philosophy. Metaphysics is only tangible as a study or research. MP is not in and of itself science. It cannot be science since there is no incontrovertible evidence to provide facts for the things that are studied, researched and disseminated in MP. BUT, it does have potential to be much more if the evidence were somehow to appear in some form, as ALL things have potential.
You do not understand potential if you deny that it is possible. And if you deny its possibilities, then that is YOUR philosophy.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2012
Philosophy, however, although not mainstream science, infers the many possibilities and potentialities of scientific study and research. It also runs the gamut of "teachable moments" to which mainstream science can refer to in the course of their work. For instance, the phrase, "What hath God wrought?" is philosophising. And when the scientists of the Manhattan Project fully realized the enormous power of the atom bomb they had created/invented, they philosophised as to its inherent destructive power, and some later had misgivings. They all waxed philosophically about the future of mankind and what if the "bomb" falls into the wrong hands. Without Philosophy, there would have been no misgivings or apprehensions; no concern for humanity and its future. The science was there and they need not have been concerned of all else. But they thought it over carefully, and some even rejected the future use of the bomb. Conscience and conscientious are two of the many parts of Philosophy.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2012
http://www.nytime...p;src=pm
Obituary of Dr. Raemer Schreiber, scientist on Manhattan Project.
Philosophical thought was, "Afterward, Dr. Schreiber said that his work on Tinian had helped save the lives of American troops by making an invasion of Japan unnecessary."

http://en.wikiped...ommittee
History of Manhattan Project and its scientists.

http://www.econom...21551442
(abstract) "The conscience of Joseph Rotblat", mentions his friendship with Bertrand Russell, who said: "do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric". Also mentions Hitler's philosophy of "Gotterdammerung".
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2012
.. stars that had gone supernova would reverse back to star.


You are forgetting the laws of thermodynamics.

Other than that, derivation of the conservation of energy via Noether's First Theorem is based on the symmetry of time.
- Fleetfoot -

The supposition was that of time having a dimensional quality. I merely inferred that time as a dimension would not proceed only forwardly, but could also go backward. For time to go backward, everything in universe would also be required to reverse their course, and the laws of thermodynamics would also be reversed and could not repair to its present or future, until time resumes its forward motion. There is no "motion" of time despite all clocks manufactured. If time had motion, it would create continuous warps in space that would demolish matter and energy. The only thing that could possibly control the motions is gravity, and it would have to be a "super" gravity to keep time in check.
I have no belief that time has a motion
Russkiycremepuff
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2012
- cont'd -
of its own as though it had dimensional possibilities. Laws of thermodynamics are all based on, and rely upon, dimensional qualities of matter, energy, space, gravity, EM, et al. Even DM and DE must have dimension. You may take a circle, a perfect circle, and you may turn it, without breaking the circle, into a triangle, rectangle, square, and any other geometric design you wish as long as you do not cut the circle. The flow of the circle into angles does not depend on time because the geometry is closed. It is still a circle with dimension, and nothing has really changed. Nothing goes in and nothing comes out of the circle or whichever other geometric form it is pushed into. The form is three dimensional if you transport height, length, and depth to it so that it is no longer flat.
But time, even if it were a dimension is not involved in creating this sphere. Other influences create the sphere from the circle, because time flows onward, while the sphere, such as
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2012
From a dictionary (emphasis and numbering mine):

"PHILOSOPHY: the academic discipline concerned with making explicit the nature and significance of... beliefs and investigating the intelligibility of concepts BY MEANS OF rational argument concerning their presuppositions, implications, and interrelationships; IN PARTICULAR,

1) the rational investigation of the nature and structure of reality (METAPHYSICS),

2) the resources and limits of knowledge (epistemology),

3) the principles and import of moral judgment (ethics), and

4) the relationship between language and reality (semantics)"

-So. We now KNOW that 2, 3, and 4 are wholly physically phenomenal and as such can AND WILL be explored and understood by science as there is NO OTHER WAY to do this. Philos who resist this are not aware of the discoveries science has made about how the brain works, nor about how science goes about examining and modeling reality, and successfully predicting function. This is NOT philosophy.
cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2012
Rational argument has often failed to elucidate, but it is unfortunately the only tool philos have to work with. And it has consistently led them nowhere.

And so we are left with point 1), the spurious claim that a thing called metaphysics, the final unassailable bastion of the philo, is somehow a 'rational investigation of the nature and structure of reality' by some para- or pseudo-physical means not covered by the other 3 points. By TALKING about it. By THINKING extremely hard until you sweat.

And what have others made of this chicanery? Philos even:

Hume: "any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics...Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."

Ayer: "metaphysical propositions were neither true nor false but strictly meaningless, as were religious views."

Carnap: "[metaphysicians] are compelled to cut all connection between their statements and experience; and precisely by this procedure they deprive them of any sense."
cont>
Russkiycremepuff
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2012
- cont'd -
a planet, also moves onward in whichever direction and orbital tilt it has been assigned by nature's influences (Laws). Laws of thermodynamics preclude going backward in time for supernovae. That alone is able to convince that time is not a fourth dimension. The supernova will proceed according to its principles of gravitation and repulsion of matter and energy. It cannot go backward to its former self after it has gone through its motions and has no recollection of itself as a star.
As I have said before, time has no memory of its previous level, and therefore cannot influence bodies of matter and energy to go backward. All of your fancy Laws will not change this fact because time is an abstract.
My feeling is that clocks are actually influenced by the gravity drag and EM in space, which is why electrons and other particles are influenced by the EM and gravity (or repulsion) in their own microspace.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2012
Locke: "most of the doctrine of innate ideas in the metaphysics, such as Cartesian dualism and the Platonic realm were ridiculous and nonsensical."

And even Kant: "...though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things in themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears."

-Rough translation: WHO FREEKING KNOWS???
(quote mining graciously provided by wiki)

Conclusions: Whatever is left of philosophy now resides under the heading of metaphysics as SCIENCE has shown, or is in the process of showing, that physics, 'epistemology' (whatever that might be), ethics, and semantics are science and not philosophy; and further, that science itself is not philosophy no matter what philos would have you believe.

Is philosophy a required subject for science students? No. Do the people who are doing science need any training in philosophy at all? NO.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2012
Philosophy, however, although not mainstream science, infers the many possibilities and potentialities
No it doesnt. How could it? Only scientists can do this.
"teachable moments" to which mainstream science can refer
-But they dont. Einstein for instance found nothing there he could use.
the phrase, "What hath God wrought?" is philosophising
NO, it is from the BIBLE.
they philosophised as to its inherent destructive power, and some later had misgivings...Without Philosophy, there would have been no misgivings or apprehensions; no concern for humanity and its future.
You are invoking the standard religionist argument claiming that morality wouldnt exist without the appropriate agents to minister it. This is SHAMEFUL. How dare you?
Conscience and conscientious are two of the many parts of Philosophy
No they are 2 very human characteristics which have always and will always exist despite attempts of philos and godders to commandeer them for their own ends.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2012
time is an epiphenomena of change like a sound of the heartbeat is the epiphenomena of the heart running. When the heart stops, heartbeat stops, the same would be with time, when change would stop time would stop too. Sure it will never happen but similarity is adequate.
Fleetfoot
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2012
time is an epiphenomena of change like a sound of the heartbeat is the epiphenomena of the heart running. When the heart stops, heartbeat stops, the same would be with time, when change would stop time would stop too. Sure it will never happen but similarity is adequate.


Very poetic, but I thought we were supposed to be discussing physics. Given the previous discussions and your lack of any response, am I to take it that you have never studied even undergraduate relativity?
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Apr 28, 2012
.. stars that had gone supernova would reverse back to star.


You are forgetting the laws of thermodynamics.
The supposition was that of time having a dimensional quality. I merely inferred that time as a dimension would not proceed only forwardly, but could also go backward. For time to go backward, everything in universe would also be required to reverse their course, and the laws of thermodynamics would also be reversed ..


What is called the "thermodynamic arrow of time" prevents that, a cup falling and smashing is clearly different when watched in reverse.

I have no belief that time has a motion of its own ..


Nor do I. When you drive a curved path across a flat field, the odometer records the length of your path. A clock works the same way, it doesn't only measure how far north you have travelled. That is quite different from saying that "the field has motion". Reality does not behave the way you imagine.
Russkiycremepuff
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2012
To continue with the main topic of Time: In a closed universe,, circular or spherical. time cannot go backward. It still continues on forward. In a closed universe, as has been said before, if it were possible to exceed c, eventually you would find yourself looking at the back of your head, which is the you that never left and has yet to catch up to the you that did leave on your circular journey.
However, in a closed universe (without edges), IF you were able to reverse time and go backwards while exceeding c, you would NOT find the back of your head, nor would you have your second self that never left looking at the back of YOUR head. With reverse time, you would have ceased to exist as though you had never existed at all. And, in fact, everything that ever was would also ceases to exist as though they never happened.
Russkiycremepuff
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2012
- cont'd -
There are some scientists who think that if they were able to build a machine that could reverse time and go back to eyewitness many points in history and examine living dinosaurs and influence events, that those points in time would still be there. But they do not understand that time has no memory of the past. Events are vanished and do not simply go into some kind of file that can be pulled out later to view and experience again. Those files are only in brain's memory cells of the observer, but not in the time. Time has no vector that can be determined as to the position of one point in space relative to another point due to its lack of dimension. However, transfer of matter and energy from one point to another IS possible through a method of dissolution or dissociation, and then recreation or recombination of that matter and energy. The time involved may be measured in such experiment, but time is otherwise unnecessary.
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2012
"Dispersion" is a term that describes the dependence of speed on frequency, it does NOT cause a change of frequency and it does NOT cause a change of wavelength, what is received is the same as was transmitted. http://en.wikiped...(optics)
What I mean is this dispersion http://en.wiktion...spersion
Russkiycremepuff
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2012
time is an epiphenomena of change like a sound of the heartbeat is the epiphenomena of the heart running. When the heart stops, heartbeat stops, the same would be with time, when change would stop time would stop too. Sure it will never happen but similarity is adequate.
- Amrit Sorli -

No, how can you say that? Time is an abstract and is not dependent on anything to exist. It has always existed, even before Big Bang, matter, energy, gravity, EM, et al. It is not going to stop with the stopping of events and the changes that events create. Time has no evolution because it is not dimensional. It has existed before the universe came to be, and it will still exist long after the universe is gone, or has recondensed. Time is endless and while it behooves you to place limits on time, it is an exercise in futility except for the measurements we use for human convenience.
Matter undergoes changes, time does not.
Russkiycremepuff
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2012
Incidentally, if we could go backward in time, you would have to be willing to give up everything and all that you know in the present. Going backward and then resumption of time going forward will obliterate everything in the present, and possibly the future, since the future is determined by events and changes in the present. Once you move backward in time and then decide to come back to your present, from then on, the present can and will be changed. That is a paradox and you will not even have the memory of your present as you knew it, because it never existed.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Apr 29, 2012
"Dispersion" is a term that describes the dependence of speed on frequency, it does NOT cause a change of frequency and it does NOT cause a change of wavelength, what is received is the same as was transmitted. http://en.wikiped...(optics)


What I mean is this dispersion http://en.wiktion...spersion


I agree noting that definition 4 from that page applies, we are not talking about dispersing seeds across a field or data points over a chart. The page I cited is the same but gives further detail on that meaning.

This is exactly what I meant about using third-party sources to agree meaning and remove "subjectivism", thanks for that.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Apr 29, 2012
"Dispersion" is a term that describes the dependence of speed on frequency, it does NOT cause a change of frequency and it does NOT cause a change of wavelength, what is received is the same as was transmitted. http://en.wikiped...(optics)


I agree noting that definition 4 from that page applies, ... The page I cited is the same but gives further detail on that meaning.


Actually, there is another slightly different use in optics which isn't covered by the simpler dictionary definition regarding pulsars which is the more common version in astronomy and probably most applicable to our discussion. The best example is related to pulsars and is the one I mentioned some weeks ago in another thread:

http://en.wikiped...(optics)#Dispersion_in_pulsar_timing

In terms of redshift, that is more relevant than either refraction or diffraction.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2012
Russkiycremepuff you say time is existing before big bang.
Ok now you have to tell us what this time existing before big bang really is? Is time "energy" or is time some magic god creation that existed foe ever. You are very religious on you view. Are you aware of that ?
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2012
I came across article where it is reported about other physicists looking to separate time from space.
http://www.scient...evidence
However for us it is clear space is a physical dimension and time merely is a mathematical dimension of change in space which originates from a 3D quantum vacuum.
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2012
In dense aether model the Big Bang never happened - or maybe better - it proceeds in distributed form all the time as a process of condensation of galaxies from dark matter clouds. What we are considering as a beginning of Universe is rather a boundary of visibility area, similar to remote place at the water surface, where all surface ripples transform into waves of underwater.

In dense aether model the space-time forms a 4D foamy analogy of this water surface, the time dimension is the directional perpendicular to the surface of foam membranes. The initial singularity can be therefore understood as a place, where time and space dimensions are exchanging their roles in topological inversion of space-time in similar way, like at the even horizon of black holes.
You are very religious on you view.
Amrit, I'm reading you whole years and you're repeating the very same atemporal stuff like machine.
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2012
space is a physical dimension and time merely is a mathematical dimension
The string theory introduced the concept of dimension compactification and for me the time is such a compacted spatial dimension. Note that the time in this model is represented with gradient of vacuum density, i.e. it has direction (an "arrow") - whereas the spatial dimensions haven't. If we would live like the waterstriders at the water surface, then the directions parallel with water surface would be the spatial dimensions, because we could move freely in these directions.
The remaining direction parallel with the density gradient forming the water surface would be the time dimension, after then. In this model it's possible to travel along time dimension, but we would always expand or collapse during it like balloon, if we would travel toward past or futur
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2012
space is a physical dimension and time merely is a mathematical dimension
IMO they're dual parts of the same stuff: gradient of vacuum density. We are using the transverse waves for navigation in time by measuring of space intervals, but for example the bats or dolphins are using longitudinal wave for navigation in space by time intervals between echoes of their chirps and their brains are quite comfortable with it. Many blind people can navigate in space in similar way - so that the switching from space-time into dual time-space is easier, than it may sound for someone. It points to the deep symmetry between space and time concepts.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2012
space is a physical dimension and time merely is a mathematical dimension
I do personally consider such stance bit nontactical with respect to the convergence of our understanding to the TOE. I know, the formally thinking people tend to see the differences, whereas the holistic thinking tends to blur these differences - and both approaches can bring something new into our understanding of reality. But I believe, we should always try to find a way, how to reconcile stuffs mutually - not to point out their mutual differences. Because this is what the every "TOE" is all about: about unification. The contemporary physics is too fragmented into various isolated theories, which helps to develop various low-dimensional "quantitative" models - but from certain level this fragmented approach slows down the general understanding. This approach is prefered with physicists, as it helps them to keep their employment: the more isolated theories we have, the more theorists can keep their jobs.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Apr 29, 2012
I came across article where it is reported about other physicists looking to separate time from space.
http://www.scient...evidence


You can find more recent references to the theory here:

http://en.wikiped..._gravity

However for us it is clear space is a physical dimension and time merely is a mathematical dimension of change in space which originates from a 3D quantum vacuum.


Then you should present your derivation of your claim from QM principles in the same way that Horava has done so that it can be examined and developed as theirs was. That is the essence of scientific cooperation.
Russkiycremepuff
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 29, 2012
Russkiycremepuff you say time is existing before big bang.
Ok now you have to tell us what this time existing before big bang really is? Is time "energy" or is time some magic god creation that existed foe ever. You are very religious on you view. Are you aware of that ?
- Amrit Sorli -

Yes, thank you for asking. Time is not dimensional, therefore it does not take up dimensional space and is not subject to natural Laws, manmade or otherwise. It also has nothing to do with creationism, for it has no intelligence or will. It is not an energy as we know energy since observable and detectable energy is an emission of matter and forces such as gravity and EM. The only force that time is capable of, is its onward "flow". This flow is unseen. We cannot detect it and it is not quantifiable. It occupies "adimensional space" everywhere in the universe, but not as the same as everything else that occupies normal dimensional space. It is not a spirit or ghost either, but it IS a Force.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2012
- cont'd -
Matter and energy, cosmic rays, all the forces relative to the dimensional universe all have "cause and effect" category. They all relate to each other in some way, but time does not relate to these things because time is outside of the sphere of influence of such objects. Time is not a plasma, gas or anything related. I believe now that the closest I can come to describing this thing called time is "thought". Of course, thought and ideas stem from chemical processes in the brain. But the next question for that is: does the chemical processes in the brain cause the thoughts and ideas; or do the thoughts and ideas cause the chemical processes to facilitate the thought process? Where does thought come from? And where does time come from? It is possible that time and thought are the same, even though it seems impossible, but it only seems to be. And no, I am not delving into metaphysics with this explanation. I try to be purely analytical and observant of all aspects.
Russkiycremepuff
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2012
The next question should be: can "adimensional space" and normal dimensional space occupy the same space at the same time? That would be unseemly if you disregard the possibility of existence of adimensional space and are concentrating solely on what you already know, i.e., dimensional space. I call it "adimensional" because it is also without dimension, just like time.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2012
At moment of Big Bang, time and Adimensional space was at Zero. Adimensional space was everywhere already, and time occupied that space. When BB was sparked to explode and expand outward in all directions with all of its contents, i.e., matter and energy, its dimensional space expanded also and its velocity was able to overtake the Adimensional space, joining with it similar to two sheets of aluminium foil that are joined as one. This is why time can coexist with dimensional matter and energy, etc., and slow down temporarily, then resume its onward flow.
I think it would be wise to spell Adimensional with the capital A to avoid confusion.
I am sorry. I do not know how to test this hypothesis since I am not with accessible instruments.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2012
- Ghost of otto -

Philosophy is a valuable tool just as science is a valuable tool to discover the unknown by methods both already tried and the newly formulated. I do not understand this seeming personal enmity you have toward Philosophy, but that is your choice, which imo is irrational. I have found what you referred to in the following list, and that you had omitted from #1, "nature and significance of ORDINARY AND SCIENTIFIC BELIEFS". I do not understand why you omitted these words, but it may be that you wish to divorce scientific beliefs from Philosophical doctrine.
You may have a personal struggle with doctrine, which are many, but there are doctrines to which you seem connected although you may despise them. I do not know you personally, but within the list of doctrines and philosophers, I believe that you, as well as many others, may be found living those doctrines.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2012
You may hate to be categorised so, but you must understand that great wisdom have come from these great philosophers through their methods and we do, as humans, belong to one or more doctrines. It is an unfailing truth and, in the words of one of my American roommates, "they had us pegged".
According to dictionary: Metaphysics is branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space. Metaphysics has two main strands: that which hold that what exists lies beyond experience (as argued by Plato), and that which holds that objects of experience constitute the only reality (as argued by Kant, the logical positivists, and Hume). Metaphysics has also concerned itself with a discussion of whether what exists is made of one substance or many, and whether what exists is inevitable or driven by chance.
I see no mention of God or religion in this definition.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2012
- cont'd -
{{ philosophy [flsf]
n pl -phies
1. (Philosophy) the academic discipline concerned with making explicit the nature and significance of ordinary and scientific beliefs and investigating the intelligibility of concepts by means of rational argument concerning their presuppositions, implications, and interrelationships; in particular, the rational investigation of the nature and structure of reality (metaphysics), the resources and limits of knowledge (epistemology), the principles and import of moral judgment (ethics), and the relationship between language and reality (semantics)
2. (Philosophy) the particular doctrines relating to these issues of some specific individual or school the philosophy of Descartes
3. (Philosophy) the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a discipline the philosophy of law
Russkiycremepuff
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2012
4. (Literary & Literary Critical Terms) Archaic or literary the investigation of natural phenomena, esp alchemy, astrology, and astronomy
5. any system of belief, values, or tenets
6. a personal outlook or viewpoint
7. serenity of temper

From the Greek, philosophos means "a lover of wisdom"}}
Russkiycremepuff
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 30, 2012
Incidentally, At the end of the period of inflation, three dimensional space will separate from the Adimensional space and it will roll back toward its original point, taking all 3D matter, energy and forces with it. This will happen because Adimensional space is not infinite, although it is eternal.
Many people believe that the oldest galaxies are closest to the point of the BB, the point of origin of 3Dimensional objects. But it is the galaxies that were made after the BB from the matter and energy that "came out first" and therefore, had the highest velocity to reach the furthermost depths of the new universe. When our telescopes see the red shifting of galaxies, it is those that left the origins ahead of all others. If not for the red shift, we would think that they are still closer due to their light reaching us long after those galaxies had moved on.But in any case, they will also be the last to return to the point of origin. First to leave and last to return.
okyesno
1 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2012
The notion that theology brings nothing to science is patently false. One example would be the beginning of the universe. For thousands of years, theologians have pointed out that the Bible points to a beginning of the universe. This assertions has finally been verified by science in the last few decades, as inflationary cosmology has proven that every expanding universe has an absolute beginning of spacetime. Theologians however were first.
AmritSorli
1.4 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2012
Russkiycremepuff you say that time is a force. Are you joking ? What kind of force is time ? Could you explain that deeply, could you write a appropriate formalism which will describe time as a force ?!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2012
Philosophy is a valuable tool just as science is a valuable tool to discover the unknown by methods both already tried and the newly formulated.
No, as science has shown, nothing of what philosophy has presented has been of any value whatsoever. Except of course for it's value as a manipulative social and political tool.
I do not understand this seeming personal enmity you have toward Philosophy, but that is your choice, which imo is irrational.
Not just me. I have made this very clear. It's PHONY. It pretends to be something it is not. Doesn't that bother youthat saw that you had omitted from #1, "nature and significance of ORDINARY AND SCIENTIFIC BELIEFS :) I saw it as an attempt by some philo to maintain relevance. Ask any scientist - science is NOT philosophy. Philosophy is metaphysics which does not exist.

Philos who chanced to contribute to the sciences, had left the realm of philosophy and were doing science when they did this.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Apr 30, 2012
there are doctrines to which you seem connected although you may despise them.
Again, I have posted many opinions from astute individuals which accept this as obvious. You seem to be overly enamored with words. Would you say hawking was despising philo when he declared it was dead? I think he was just stating fact.

You posted a very good example of philo bankruptcy:

"According to dictionary: Metaphysics is branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space."

-Now think about this. Someone here is claiming that metaphysics is the basis for pretty much EVERYTHING. No one but philos, and the people who they might chance to deceive, BELIEVES this. The notion has NEVER produced anything of value or use. It has NEVER clarified anything. Continuing to claim that it can and does is outrageous.

I refer to the quotes of even philos who have said as much.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Apr 30, 2012
You may hate to be categorised so, but you must understand that great wisdom have come from these great philosophers through their methods
-And they were always the first to tell you this.
and we do, as humans, belong to one or more doctrines. It is an unfailing truth and, in the words of one of my American roommates, "they had us pegged".
This is akin to religionists claiming that we wouldn't be moral unless their god was around to tell us how. It is not true. It is an unfailing lie.

And you declaring that it is true does not make it so. I have posted much specific evidence of the uselessness of philosophy. You have posted none for it's specific value.
I see no mention of God or religion in this definition.
No, Kant did this when he declared that belief in some deity was more important than knowledge. Your metaphysics is just another name for the holy spirit. Transcendence. Rubbish.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2012
I was researching the difference between transcendence and immanence and I came across this:

"Major faiths commonly devote significant philosophical efforts to explaining the relationship between immanence and transcendence, but these efforts run the gamut from casting immanence as a characteristic of a transcendent God (common in Abrahamic faiths) to subsuming transcendent "personal" gods in a greater immanent being (Hindu Brahman) to approaching the question of transcendence as something which can only be answered through an appraisal of immanence (Some philosophical perspectives)."

-And I realize that from this we can derive some useful word calculations...

Immanence = transcendence = nothing
Philosophy = religion = nothing

-Of course these factors are all variables with considerable room for much (worthless) word calculating within each of them.
Russkiycremepuff
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 30, 2012
Russkiycremepuff you say that time is a force. Are you joking ? What kind of force is time ? Could you explain that deeply, could you write a appropriate formalism which will describe time as a force ?!
- Amrit Sorli -

Sir, YOU are the scientist, not I. As has been said before, time dilation occurs in the presence of mass due to gravitational force. Time is a different kind of force, as it flows forward from present to future (Zero to one, Zero to one, endlessly), but never backward. While it is not a dimensional force, it still has a capability of slowing down slightly as it collides with mass and energies, but regains its linear movement. Other forces such as EM can go through mass and emerge elsewhere. Time cannot do that, but it flows on its own Adimensional space. That space is smooth and is somewhat attached to normal dimensional space so that time is able to interact with mass, even slightly. In fact, I have been wondering if that A. space is the DM and DE that we seek.
Russkiycremepuff
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 30, 2012
- cont'd -
But let us go back to the beginning, the singularity. Within that singularity was 3D mass and energy, other forces had not been created yet. IF time had been within that singularity, it too, would have been dimensional and that is ridiculously impossible. Therefore, time and its own A. space were OUTSIDE of the singularity and were established already in some kind of preparation for the new universe. It may have happened many times, or just once.
Time is incremental, always flowing from present to future, whereupon that future becomes the now, or present and time resets back to Zero. It IS a force due to its flow, but its flow is not dependent on anything but its being carried on its Adimensional space.
Russkiycremepuff
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 30, 2012
- cont'd -
Time, as we know it and measure it according to Velocity and distances, use it as a utility. Likewise, I believe that at moment of Big Bang, all the contents of the Singularity also used time and A. space as a utility to explode out of its origin and, following the linearity of the A. space in all directions, the 3D space and A. space joined together, a bit loosely due to the matter that carried with the force of the explosion or inflation of 3D space. Time was already everywhere, everywhere that its A. space was in place, that is.
Now, it is for you scientists to find that Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Those are the matrix which enables Time and are eternal.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) May 01, 2012
Since you appear to have got the point that dispersion doesn't alter frequency, I'll wrap up some previous questions.

If you have no matter-of-fact arguments against tired light model of red shift, ...

You have arguments - or you haven't. That's all.


The evidence ruling it out is well publicised, for example here:

http://www.astro....dlit.htm
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) May 01, 2012
The local speed of light anywhere is determined by the local refractive index, it determines the wavelength as a function of frequency but it cannot alter the frequency.
The refraction index of the vacuum inside of the gravitational lens is apparently higher than one. Does it mean, the light is spreading more slowly through such a vacuum?


Yes. The same effect also produces the Shapiro Delay, first predicted in 1964 and confirmed in 1966/7.

http://en.wikiped...ro_delay
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) May 01, 2012
The frequency we receive is reduced compared to that, similar to the Doppler Effect.
OK, the source of light shinning in gravity well appears reddish because gravitational red shift. This red-shift appears like the Doppler effect, but nothing actually moves here.


Correct, that's why I said "similar to".

Now the question is, why do you want to interpret the Hubble red shift as a Doppler effect of space-time expansion? The origin of this red shift may be exactly the same: a gravitational red shift.


Again that is accurate, cosmological redshift is interpreted as a consequence of the Friedmann equations which were first found as a solution to GR. Doppler is a good approximation over shorter distances but for high redshifts the exact gravitational interpretation is required. That is why it is often noted that it is more accurate to describe space as expanding rather than galaxies moving through space.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (8) May 01, 2012
"Time dilatation" only means velocity of change slow down, rate of clocks slow down. Not because some "time" would dilate as a physical dimension, but because where gravity is stronger energy density of quantum vacuum is less.....and this influences velocity of change.....easy but not to easy

BoxPopuli
3.7 / 5 (6) May 01, 2012
Extreme crank Armpit Sorli quipped:

"Time dilatation" only means velocity of change slow down, rate of clocks slow down. Not because some "time" would dilate as a physical dimension, but because where gravity is stronger energy density of quantum vacuum is less.....and this influences velocity of change


Amrit, why don't you give up writing about stuff that you have no clue about? You are co-mingling Doppler shift (due to velocity) with gravitational redshift. You make it obvious that you don't know the difference. The fact that you published your crap in the fringe journal Physics Essays doesn't mean that you know physics, quite the contrary.
Terriva
1 / 5 (7) May 01, 2012
Time dilatation" only means velocity of change slow down, rate of clocks slow down. Not because some "time" would dilate as a physical dimension, but because where gravity is stronger energy density of quantum vacuum is less
In dense aether theory (and in Minkowski space-time) it means the same. In AWT the time dimension plays a role of compacted spatial dimension, analogous to direction parallel with density gradient at the foamy surface of supercritical fluid. When this fluid becomes heated, then the speed of transverse waves moving along phase surface will increase and the the gradient forming the phase interface will disappear. When the space dimension collapses, then the time dimension expands accordingly and vice-versa.
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) May 01, 2012
where gravity is stronger energy density of quantum vacuum is less
You mean probably "lower". Such view violates the relativity and the concept of gravitational lensing, in which the density of vacuum increases with the intensity of gravitational field. The refractive index of gravitational lens is the higher, the more massive the object is, the stronger gravity is around it. Because of intrinsic energy content of gravitational field the opposite dependence would have no meaning.
Gawad
5 / 5 (5) May 01, 2012
- Amrit Sorli -
Sir, YOU are the scientist, not I.


Euh, could we please get one thing straight here? Sorli is NOT a scientist, o.k.? At best he's a science fiction writer. That's what Physics Essays prints.

If someone repeatedly fails at performing simple freshman level physics (e.g., demonstrating knowledge of Minkowski's Special Relativity formula...never mind even demonstrating an understanding of its meaning and consequences) that person IS NOT a scientist. That person, if they are trying to pass themselves off as a scientist, is a fraud.

Sorli has repeatedly exposed himself as a FRAUD. He's not even minimally equipped to overthrow any kind of scientific paradigms, mush less Relativity. Please!
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 02, 2012
"Time dilatation" only means velocity of change slow down, rate of clocks slow down. Not because some "time" would dilate as a physical dimension, but because where gravity is stronger energy density of quantum vacuum is less.....and this influences velocity of change.....easy but not to easy

- Amrit Sorli -

Sir:
In my last post I said that "time dilation occurs in the presence of mass due to gravitational force". That is an error I wish to correct, if it is not too late to do so.
I was tired when I typed that error, and a big error it is.

http://phys.org/n...752.html
This is from 2010 and regards "time dilation" and its absence from quasars, but not from supernovae.

"One of Hawkins possible explanations for quasars lack of time dilation is that light from the quasars is being bent by black holes scattered throughout the universe. These black holes, which may have formed shortly after the big bang, would have a gravitational distortion that affects the time
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 02, 2012
- cont'd -
dilation of distant quasars. However, this idea of gravitational microlensing is a controversial suggestion, as it requires that there be enough black holes to account for all of the universes dark matter. As Hawkins explains, most physicists predict that dark matter consists of undiscovered subatomic particles rather than primordial black holes."
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 02, 2012
Time, not being dimensional, cannot be absorbed or trapped by Black Holes or quasars, etc. It can simply pass around the BH, but not through it even though all dimensional mass and energy may enter the BH. Time goes around the BH and resumes its linear course. Time itself is not effecting the accretion disk that surrounds the BH. Instead, the BH itself is effecting the disk and the Event Horizon with its massive gravitational attraction that causes all the matter and energy in its vicinity to spin around the disk and then spin inwards like the needle on a phonograph record that has skipped over the grooves toward the center.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 02, 2012
The velocity of c is exceeded by the velocity of the 3D masses and energy, so that to an observer far away, it seems that time has slowed down for the 3D objects. But actually, time is not involved. It is because the c has been exceeded by the spin of the objects, and it is the c that is slower than the objects. When the 3D objects are FTL, the light itself falls behind in Velocity and appears to have slowed in comparison with the swirling mass of 3D objects. Therefore, time is not to blame and is not even involved with the BH.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 02, 2012
- cont'd -
It is important to also remember that the Adimensional space is not absorbed or enters the BH, or even remains near it. That is because an Adimensional object has no gravitational force of its own and is only mildly affected by a dimensional body's gravitational attraction due to the slight clinging of the "fabric" of 3Dimensional space to the fabric of Adimensional space. The same holds true for the 3Dimensional space. It does not enter into BH, For 3D space to enter into vicinity of BH and enter into its influence, that 3D space would have to separate itself from the A. space and then it would be lost into the BH. But because it "clings" to the A. space, it proceeds along with the Adimensional space on which Time moves along with both of the spatial entities or objects, i.e., 3D space and A. space. Only the matter/energy of mass, etc. can enter the BH but not the space.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 02, 2012
The light © described in the article, is 3Dimensional and travels at a constant speed. In the paragraph from article, it is only then that Hawkins mentions Dark Matter that may consist of "undiscovered" subatomic particles. Then continues to grab at other cosmic possibilities. I do not know if Hawkins has discovered anything new since 2006 and 2010, at this point.
I do NOT believe in time dilation in the presence of 3D mass and energy. There is very little influence on time, if any, by matter/energy. Time and 3D mass/energy are not related to each other, and time and the spatial fabric simply goes around the mass to emerge on the other side and keeps going.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 02, 2012
I do believe that the prior existence of Adimensional space is crucial to enabling Big Bang to proceed smoothly rather than with much chaos and too much destruction.

Two days ago, I started to read an article on Phys.org relating to the Dark Matter not being found in vicinity of the Sun. I will try to find it again. But. the Dark Matter and Dark Energy I believe to be another aspect of the fabric of Adimensional space. If I am correct, then that fabric of A. space will not remain in Sun's vicinity or within it, but will likely divide similar to jelly and then join back together on the other side of 3D object. So too with all other 3D objects that it encounters without any time dilation.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (7) May 02, 2012
Time is a numerical order of a duration of a given physical phenomena which run in a 3D quantum vacuum. At the Planck scale there is no time, physical phenomena are immediate. By the immediate phenomena as EPR and gravity information and energy transfer are carried directly by the fundamental grains of a 3D quantum vacuum. Motion of light in a 3D quantum vacuum has its time, at the photon scale there is no "relativity" yet; velocity of light is invariant. "Relativity" starts at the scale of the pi meson.

Fleetfoot
not rated yet May 02, 2012
In my last post I said that "time dilation occurs in the presence of mass due to gravitational force". That is an error I wish to correct, if it is not too late to do so.
I was tired when I typed that error, and a big error it is.


Indeed but we all make mistakes. Gravitational time dilation is determined by the gravitational potential, not the force.

http://phys.org/news190027752.html
This is from 2010 and regards "time dilation" and its absence from quasars, but not from supernovae.


The title is misleading, it refers to an attempt to measure something equivalent to the stretching of supernova light curves but in quasars. The technique uses a Fourier Transform and the evidence only shows they haven't measured the lowest frequency components yet. They need about 200 years of data to do that reliably so don't hold your breath.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) May 02, 2012
Amrit Sorli wrote:

Motion of light in a 3D quantum vacuum has its time, at the photon scale there is no "relativity" yet; velocity of light is invariant.


This is self-contradictory. If "there is no 'relativity'", the speed would be frame dependent as described by the Galilean Transforms, it cannot be invariant. You need to read a basic undergraduate book on this topic Amrit, you are coming across as having no knowledge of the subject whatsoever.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (5) May 02, 2012
In SR light speed c is invariant in all inertial systems,
"relative" is velocity of material change in inertial systems rate of clocks included.
Time is here only a numerical order of duration of material change.
Smaller the number of numerical order measured by the clock, slower the velocity of material change.
Twins get older only in a 3D quantum vacuum not in space-time which is only a math model and has no physical existence.
I see my work here is not rely fully understood: I do not deny existence of time, time we measure with clocks exist; time is a numerical order of duration of change that run in a 3D quantum vacuum. Definitely time has no physical existence as a medium in which change run. I hope this will be clear soon to all.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) May 02, 2012
I see my work here is not rely fully understood:


Part of that may be because English is clearly a second language for you. Reading the book I recommended will help you learn the technical terms accurately. For example:

In SR light speed c is invariant in all inertial systems,


It is not "invariant in all inertial systems", instead "invariant" means it "has the same value in all inertial [coordinate] systems".

That may have been what you meant, it's hard to tell.

Time is here only a numerical order of duration of material change.


That is not disputed, the difference between the 3D and 4D interpretation is whether the measurement is path-dependent.

Twins get older only in a 3D quantum vacuum not in space-time which is only a math model and has no physical existence... I hope this will be clear soon to all.


What you are saying is clear but is contrary to the experimental evidence supporting GR.
BoxPopuli
4 / 5 (4) May 02, 2012
Extreme crank Armpit Sorli insisted in his stupidity:

Twins get older only in a 3D quantum vacuum not in space-time which is only a math model and has no physical existence.


You don't get it, do you? There are experimental tests of the twins' paradox. Can you take a break from spouting your idiocies?
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) May 02, 2012
Time is a numerical order of a duration of a given physical phenomena


You're kidding, right? What the hell is that suppose to mean other than time is time?

So, this clock rolls into a bar...
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) May 02, 2012
Extreme crank Armpit Sorli insisted in his stupidity:

Twins get older only in a 3D quantum vacuum not in space-time which is only a math model and has no physical existence.


You don't get it, do you? There are experimental tests of the twins' paradox. Can you take a break from spouting your idiocies?


Experiments cannot distinguish between SR and Lorentz's aether since they both predict the same transform equations. I don't think Amrit realises he is only repeating a model that is over a century old, there is nothing new here.
Origin
1 / 5 (3) May 02, 2012
Time is a numerical order of a duration of a given physical phenomena

What the hell is that suppose to mean other than time is time?.
What worse, this re-definition of time is not even quantitative. How the speed of time is defined in your definition? Special relativity is nothing special but at least it manages the time in the way, which enables to predict the dilatation of time in qualitative way. How you could estimate this dilatation from "numerical order of events"?
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (6) May 02, 2012
How the speed of time is defined in your definition?

Time has no speed. Change has speed, for example change of position, means motion has speed: v = d/t

Terriva
1 / 5 (4) May 02, 2012
Time has no speed. Change has speed, for example change of position, means motion has speed: v = d/t
How do you want to express the speed of change without time variable, after then?
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 02, 2012
I think that Mr. Sorli's reference to time as a "numerical order within the duration of a given physical phenomenon", is another way of saying that time as a utility is used as a measurement in order to measure an event or a distance (the given physical phenomenon) within the assigned parameters of specific "blocks" of invariant distances between one point to another point in the block. For instance, one meter to the next meter, or a previous one, would have a given measurement that provides an optical understanding of the 3D measuring of the distance between the two or more items being measured.
The same holds true for measuring an event with utilising a timepiece to determine duration of the event by measuring the "blocks" provided with the timepiece.
Russkiycremepuff
1.8 / 5 (5) May 02, 2012
However, I do not believe that time, in and of itself, has a numerical order, except for an ability to measure the future as that future becomes the now or present. In that respect, you may consider time to be "militarised" in its perfect precision.
Time does not err; it is perfection. However, timepieces and observations of time can err, which can often have disastrous results.

As I have said before, time is everywhere, along with its Adimensional fabric of space. It would have to be everywhere, in order to measure observable differences in different parts of the universe. Those other parts could be measured by ordinary timepieces also, as on Earth, but the term of the hour and the day may have to be modified due to actual length of hours, days and years in different locations of the universe. The change from future to present is not dependent on time because that change is dimensional and time is non-dimensional. It merely measures the change or event, and as time flows, it - cont'd
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 02, 2012
continuously flows in one direction (forward), and resets itself to Zero when it reaches the end of the future, or tomorrow and that future becomes today, thus time resetting itself back to Zero.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 02, 2012
For instance, let us say that Russkiycremepuff is getting married next Saturday (not true) and today is Wednesday. My parents have waited many years for this event, as they have badgered me to marry before they get too old to see any grandchildren. Parents of future bride also have waited many years for their baby to marry, and both her parents and mine cannot wait for Saturday to arrive. But the hours seem to go so slow, and I appreciate that so that I can think this impending event more carefully. My future bride sounds like a chipmunk, as so many other American girls do, and I have misgivings because of that. As the hours go by, I think hard about it and sweat drips into my eyes. At this point, I realise that I am still a free man, but then images of my parents remind me to not run away before the day of the wedding.
Question: how many times have I referred to time in this story? Please itemise.
Tachyon8491
1.9 / 5 (9) May 02, 2012
Dear Russky - the fact that your fiancee sounds like a chipmunk clearly indicates that your subjective experience of her voice-tempo is in a different timeframe. Let us hope that she has not also suffered Lorentz contraction... Breast implants can compensate here though. Time and change are indivisible - the attribution of "absolute" metric units to the tempo of change in causal evolutions I think is at the root of confusion - a different orientation might result from a new mathematical modelling of causality. The definition of an SI unit of time in terms of a reference atomic frequency has an intrinsic level of indirection built into it, to my mind.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet May 02, 2012
I think that Mr. Sorli's reference to time as a "numerical order within the duration of a given physical phenomenon", is another way of saying that time as a utility is used as a measurement in order to measure an event or a distance (the given physical phenomenon) within the assigned parameters of specific "blocks" of invariant distances between one point to another point in the block. .. The same holds true for measuring an event with utilising a timepiece to determine duration of the event by measuring the "blocks" provided with the timepiece.


So how does that apply to this clock:

http://www.youtub...=related
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 03, 2012
At first I thought the video may be some trick photography, but then I realized that is a chemical reaction that is continuous until another chemical might be added to stop the action. An acid bath? The transformation from blue to clear and back again is interesting, but has nothing to do with time. It is specifically 3Dimensional and is possibly interacting with atmospheric conditions also such as temperature, barometric pressure, and other possible factors. I would not care to watch the process all day since my Time is valuable. A pastry baking in an oven would depend on a timepiece to avoid turning into burnt carbon. But the liquid in the beaker is not subjected to heat, so it will probably continue to change color all day. Nice video, but boring.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 03, 2012
Briggs - Rauscher should try an oscillating rainbow of colors. The changing of the colors from clear to blue may be the chemical timepiece, but it is still only a 3D chemical reaction with a given density and strength of one chemical over another, and then the densities are reversed resulting in color change again. The liquid in the beaker is inconvenient as a timepiece or clock and it may not conform exactly to the blocks of seconds, minutes, and hours as in a normal 3D clock. But of this I cannot be certain. The amount of time that it would take to determine how much has passed before the next change in color is not enough in the video of two minutes and 38 seconds. Is each transition to one color or the other consisting of one minute for each transition to be completed? One and a half minutes? One and 7/8ths short of 2 minutes? Is one hour a full hour with this chemical reaction?
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 03, 2012
The volume of each chemical would have to be precise for accuracy and evaporation could occur that may negate that accuracy. And yet, it is still not dependent on a nondimensional time and its flow. The liquid in the beaker is still very much 3D and only depends on the skills and understanding of the chemists who did the video. The chemicals in the beaker are very much from the earth, so that does not involve time, just an imitation of it. It is impossible to entrap time and make it do as you wish, bend to your will, or make it go backward. It flows onward and has no effect on the mechanical timepieces made by humans. It is humans who have a need for controlling time as they perceive it by the manufacture of timepieces of whatever type. As I have said before, it is for convenience of man to do this. And cosmic bodies are not dependent on time, but only their own chemistry and forces such as gravity and EM. Is this a heresy? I do not believe so.
Origin
1 / 5 (4) May 03, 2012
Is this a heresy? I do not believe so.
It's just plain stupid, because special relativity already defines the time in much more qualitative way. As an aetherist, I'm far from being a blind proponent of relativity - but its insights about mutual relation of time and space are the best ones which we have, they've deeper meaning in dense aether model - and the naive philosophizing about time defined with speed of chemical reactions or with "numerical order of changes" cannot replace it at least a bit. It's just waste of time: you cannot predict anything from these thoughts neither qualitatively, neither quantitatively.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet May 03, 2012
The liquid in the beaker is inconvenient as a timepiece or clock and it may not conform exactly to the blocks of seconds, minutes, and hours as in a normal 3D clock. .. Is each transition to one color or the other consisting of one minute for each transition to be completed?


It's certainly not convenient, not very accurate and the duration between colour changes depends on the concentration of the reactants but I was making the qualitative point that on can sit and look at a simle beaker full of liquid which to our perception is not moving and still observe something that measures "time".

You said " time as a utility is used .. to measure an event or a distance (the given physical phenomenon) within the assigned parameters of specific 'blocks'". While a ruler can be used to measure distance, the period between colour transitions acts as the "blocks" or base units for measuring duration. We can use transitions of state instead of physical motion provided they are regular.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 03, 2012
and equal. They must be of equal proportion, otherwise there is possibility of error of determination of transition. The transition from one color to another also had to be proportional as to where one ends and the other begins. It is in that transition where the error is most likely to occur, given one or more nanoseconds off can throw the whole thing in disarray. The transition of color must by necessity contain a "wall", where on the other side of that wall is the true beginning of the next stage (color).
This is why a timepiece such as hourglass could never be accurate because the transition phase of turning the hourglass over expended the energy that should have been for a continuous flow of the sand. Flow of sand is not very good timepiece anyway, due to unequal patterns and size of sand particles. Solar watches may be a better timepiece, depending on c.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 03, 2012
So too with ruler. On the ruler are division lines between 1cm and 2cm. But the dividing line, if even a small difference with all other dividing lines may render the ruler unequal and inaccurate. Most people do not consider this important imperfection because it seems so trivial. But it is that difference that may mean a bad tilt of a building or straight line.
I have been accused of pedantry in case you wondered, but it is badge of honor.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 03, 2012
How the speed of time is defined in your definition?

Time has no speed. Change has speed, for example change of position, means motion has speed: v = d/t

- Amrit Sorli -

Mr. Sorli is correct that time has no "particular" speed, although it does have an unquantifiable speed that may never be determined with our present technology. Because time is unconnected to normal 3D space and only 'flows' on its Adimensional space fabric, Time can continue on its own speed which is outside of our frame of reference, for now.
The insistence of Aetherists and others that time and 3D space fabric are somehow entwined is illogical. If that were the case, then time would not flow smoothly and would stop and start and then rush madly off to join the speed of light. In that case, time would be wholly dependent on the speed and machinations of every 3Dimensional object it encountered and the universe would be in a herky-jerky motion because of it.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 03, 2012
Dear Russky - the fact that your fiancee sounds like a chipmunk clearly indicates that your subjective experience of her voice-tempo is in a different timeframe. Let us hope that she has not also suffered Lorentz contraction... Breast implants can compensate here though. Time and change are indivisible - the attribution of "absolute" metric units to the tempo of change in causal evolutions I think is at the root of confusion - a different orientation might result from a new mathematical modelling of causality. The definition of an SI unit of time in terms of a reference atomic frequency has an intrinsic level of indirection built into it, to my mind.
- Tachyon -

In my strange story regarding placements of time in a man's last few days of freedom, I refer to the chipmunk sound of female voice because I have noticed that many young women have developed a strange voice pattern that is similar to the "Alvin and the Chipmunks" DVD that one of my girlfriends brought to the
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 03, 2012
house that I share with others. I wanted to comment on this American phenomena because I recall female actresses in the older movies that watched when younger, and they did not have such a voice, but only earthy, womanly voice the same as nice Russian young women. I do not know the cause of this combination of chipmunk and baby voice, but I would dread to wake up next to chipmunk. I have wondered if our solar system is approaching Black Hole and it is changing voices of women. But it is a cause of major concern for me. My only response is to go back home to Russia and find a good Russian girl to marry, and that will solve my dilemma. I am almost done with University in America and will go home to a teaching job at University, perhaps in Moskva. I do not like what I see in America. But in any case, I have counted 12 references to time in my previous account of wedding to Miss chipmunk voice. No one else has responded to that post. Perhaps people are offended?
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 03, 2012
Tachyon;
When you say that time and change are indivisible, you are partly correct. The change can be measured by time, but the two are not indivisible. If time were indivisible with change, then the two would be locked together forever as one. That cannot be because changes are always occurring and any and all changes will occur without the need for time except as utility. I have mentioned this enough times, I think.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) May 04, 2012
We can use transitions of state instead of physical motion provided they are regular.

and equal. They must be of equal proportion, otherwise there is possibility of error of determination of transition.


Not "proportion", they must be of equal duration, equal amounts of time. That is what I meant by "regular", Newton used the word "equable", or at least that is how it was translated.

The transition from one color to another also had to be proportional as to where one ends and the other begins. It is in that transition where the error is most likely to occur, given one or more nanoseconds off can throw the whole thing in disarray. ..


You go too far. We can class the clock as being in one of two states, "blue" or "clear" at any moment. Times are measured only by counting the number of occassions that state changes say from clear to blue during the interval to be measured.

However, you are still missing the point, time can be measured by state changes alone.
Tachyon8491
1.7 / 5 (6) May 04, 2012
Russky - I cannot conceive of change ^without^ time or for that matter, time without change - instead of saying time and change are indivisible perhaps it's more digestible then to assert that their phenomenology is inseverable but so linked that there are variable transform proportionalities between them with limits varying from zero to infinity. BTW, I hinted that hooking SI time units to ref. frequency is a "level of indirection" - this is in fact measuring "state changes" - we need a different empirical insight into causality, the maths that models it, but first we need the inductive philosophy to guide its pragmatism and experimental, instrumented approaches...
Tachyon8491
1.7 / 5 (6) May 04, 2012
Also, Russky, I believe that you are "partially correct" in that "change always occurs" (this is axiomatic...) but this implies ^objective time^ irrespective of its subjective experience. UNLESS we also axiomatically accept that all change is simultaneous and that the subjective experience of objective time is a psychodynamic function in the perception of universal simultaneity of all potential into actualisation. The latter would, to my mind, not be incompatible with a variant of the many worlds theory, although I am not an enthusiastic proponent of that variant. I do however axiomatically accept that all potential exists, is inattributable (unlimited) and has a spectrum of probabilities in its actualisation - as causal evolutions - that are NOT subject to a "bottom up" approach such as modelled in complexity theory - too materialistic for my liking. I fundamentally believe psychodynamics as quantised consciousness and objective reality are inseverable. Need find its meeting ground...
AmritSorli
1.3 / 5 (12) May 04, 2012
Russkiycremepuff:
Because time is unconnected to normal 3D space and only 'flows' on its Adimensional space fabric,

again some magic properties of time....what for ?

time is numerical order of change in this real 3D physical space which originates from the 3D quantum vacuum. Time is real as much as change is real.

Time is a numerical order of a duration of a given physical phenomena which run in a 3D quantum vacuum. At the Planck scale there is no time, physical phenomena are immediate. By the immediate phenomena as EPR and gravity information and energy transfer are carried directly by the fundamental grains of a 3D quantum vacuum. Motion of light in a 3D quantum vacuum has its time, at the photon scale there is no "relativity" yet; velocity of light is invariant. "Relativity" starts at the scale of the pi meson.
http://physicsess...25.1.141

http://physicsess....3590161

Yours Sincerely Amrit S. orli
casualjoe
not rated yet May 04, 2012
At the Planck scale there is no time, physical phenomena are immediate.

While you indeed talk perfect sense, this line reminded me of a conversation I had with a physicist friend at university where he told me that there is a measured 'time' between photon absorption and subsequent emission from an atom. Is this interaction on the plank scale or a larger scale?
Joe
Tachyon8491
1.7 / 5 (6) May 04, 2012
Applying Fock-Lorentz symmetry principles to events at planck length would appear to allow the propagation of stimulus (causal evolution catalysis) to vary in the quantal microdomain. This also brings into question whether the quantization of space, as also the quantization of objective time, are irreducible fundamentals... To my mind there have always been two mutually exclusive philosophical approaches: discretists (as in atomistic modelling, "standard" particle family, etc.) and "continuists" - quantization being a subjective threshold and yielding to further analytical complexity; e.g. Bohm's Implicate Domain. Objective Reality should be considered more a function of RELATTIONS between processes (all "things" are processes) than matter-energy complexes themselves. Time, in this perspective is a relationary function, secondary to the propagation of intentionality, and not a separate entity.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) May 04, 2012
"Relativity" starts at the scale of the pi meson.
In dense aether model the relativity balances the quantum mechanics at the CMBR wavelength. It's hard to say, where this balance starts, because it's recursive in fractal nested way (from intrinsic perspective the particles are tiny black holes, driven with relativity laws). http://phys.org/n...121.html
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) May 04, 2012
Textbook Electrodynamics May Contradict Relativity (more details). The Lorentz force produces a drag, which transverse wave could never generate. Try to imagine this paradox with water surface model of dense aether theory: until its surface ripples are perfectly transverse (capillary waves), they don't have reference frame for their motion and we could say, they do follow the special relativity. But such waves cannot exert any force to the objects at the water surface - this force can be exerted only when these wave do have a longitudinal component. On the other hand, such a longitudinal component would introduce a frame drag, thus introducing an observable reference frame.
Terriva
1.7 / 5 (6) May 04, 2012
This seems to be the corresponding arXiv post. And here's the acceptance page on Physical Review Letters.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 04, 2012
We can use transitions of state instead of physical motion provided they are regular.

and equal. They must be of equal proportion, otherwise there is possibility of error of determination of transition.


Not "proportion", they must be of equal duration, equal amounts of time. That is what I meant by "regular", Newton used the word "equable", or at least that is how it was translated.

The transition from one color to another also had to be proportional as to where one ends and the other begins. It is in that transition where the error is most likely to occur, given one or more nanoseconds off can throw the whole thing in disarray. ..


You go too far. We can class the clock as being in one of two states, "blue" or "clear" at any moment. Times are measured only by counting the number of occassions that state changes say from clear to blue during the interval to be measured. - Fleetfoot -

Yes, you are correct. I chose the wrong word.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 04, 2012
@ Fleetfoot

In another universe, perfection might be achieved in all things; Unfortunately, our universe is not that one. So I will have to agree that a slight imperfection in duration of transition must be tolerated. But not TOO much. That is something that the keepers of the beaker will have to work on. I like the color exchange, but there are too many variables that are possible which would throw off the timing.

"However, you are still missing the point, time can be measured by state changes alone." - Fleetfoot -

Yes of course. The changes do not depend on time, except as measurement of distances and durations. Time itself cannot be measured; only the thing itself is measurable by time as we know and understand time. Time is actually elusive in its continuous flow in (or on) Adimensional space fabric. We should understand that there is a "flow" of time, but we must build clocks and rulers and regulate the methods of precise measurements in order to "harness" the time in precision
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 04, 2012
I have seen carpenters measure a piece of wood "by eye", as they explained the reason for not using a metre stick. I did not think that was wise, but I am not trained in that area. When you say that "time can be measured by state changes alone", there are many things to consider other than just the change in the state of the object or event or distance. But it is still not time that is being measured, it is our concept of time that is doing the measuring according to our manmade rules and methods. I believe that you actually mean the "duration" is being measured and Time as a force is being given the honor.
Time itself cannot be measured. It is only that man has set Time up as a special commodity, almost like an entity, and Time gets blamed for everything. We never have enough Time or, it's too late, etc.
casualjoe
not rated yet May 04, 2012

Time is actually elusive

Yes it seems to be eluding everything.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 04, 2012
Russky - I cannot conceive of change ^without^ time or for that matter, time without change - instead of saying time and change are indivisible perhaps it's more digestible then to assert that their phenomenology is inseverable but so linked that there are variable transform proportionalities between them with limits varying from zero to infinity. BTW, I hinted that hooking SI time units to ref. frequency is a "level of indirection" - this is in fact measuring "state changes" - we need a different empirical insight into causality, the maths that models it, but first we need the inductive philosophy to guide its pragmatism and experimental, instrumented approaches...
- Tachyon -

As I have said, Time is an elusive commodity. You cannot capture Time and put it in a cage like a bird. You must remove Time from your psyche as though it were an entity. It does not think; it does not influence anything that is matter and energy.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 04, 2012
It does not give nor receive; it does not tell you what to do.
It could be said that Time "rides" upon its Adimensional space fabric continuously and avoids 3D spatial matter and energy but not the 3D space itself. We cannot "detect" Time itself even though it does exist and is everywhere.
You still equate Time with change and vice-versa, but changes can occur without the influence of Time, or rather your concept of Time, unless you are continually looking at your timepiece to measure durations of change.
Tachyon, there is no phenomenology in Adimensional Time as related to changes, and so there is no inseverability clause, as you succinctly put it without the "clause". Any "variable transform proportionalities" are not Adimensional Time dependent, only on the watch or clock that measures your concept of time.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 04, 2012
- cont'd -
Empirical insight into causality? You may measure the state changes AND produce the math just by observation and measuring with accuracy. Why would you need inductive philosophy to guide anything regarding time and events or distances? It is not a philosophical exercise. Do not make it so complicated.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 04, 2012
Also, Russky, I believe that you are "partially correct" in that "change always occurs" (this is axiomatic...) but this implies ^objective time^ irrespective of its subjective experience. UNLESS we also axiomatically accept that all change is simultaneous and that the subjective experience of objective time is a psychodynamic function in the perception of universal simultaneity of all potential into actualisation. The latter would, to my mind, not be incompatible with a variant of the many worlds theory, although I am not an enthusiastic proponent of that variant. .
- Tachyon -

Tachyon, do you talk like this to your grandmother? Just wondering.
Objectivity of time? Or objectivity of the events or distances that are measured by our concept of time? The changes themselves are subjective. No, there is NO universal simultaneity, changes are random and do not depend on "psychodynamic function" or thoughts and ideas. All potential has capability of transitioning into actualisation.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) May 04, 2012
"I do however axiomatically accept that all potential exists, is inattributable (unlimited) and has a spectrum of probabilities in its actualisation - as causal evolutions - that are NOT subject to a "bottom up" approach such as modelled in complexity theory - too materialistic for my liking. I fundamentally believe psychodynamics as quantised consciousness and objective reality are inseverable. Need find its meeting ground..." - Tachyon -

There is no need to sever your quantised consciousness from your objective reality. Your consciousness demands reality to avoid psychoses. I see no problem in that.
I now have an overwhelming desire to watch a baseball game on TV after responding to you. And I HATE baseball.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 05, 2012
"again some magic properties of time....what for ?" - Amrit Sorli -

Mr. Sorli, I have already stated in previous comments that Time and its accompanying Adimensional fabric of space, were OUTSIDE of the Big Bang Singulrity even before the great expansion or explosion of all matter and energy outward in all directions. IF the Time had been within the Singularity object, then time would need to be also 3Dimensional and would have exploded outward along with all other objects in that first nanosecond of the "explosion". For Time to be locked into that Singularity, it would need to interact with all forms of matter and energy as another form of energy. IF time were 3Dimensional, it would be readily seen in whichever shape or form it would have taken. Also Logically speaking, if Time cannot be seen or detected with any of our senses or with mechanical instruments, that means that Time is NOT 3Dimensional, and therefore, it has no form and cannot interact with 3D objects or space.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 05, 2012
Time is Adimensional, but it flows and is not static. It and its space-fabric may also be the cause of continued expansion of universe as Time continuously measures that expansion of universe.

When you say that "Time is a numerical order of a duration of a given physical phenomena which run in a 3D quantum vacuum.", that is not in dispute. But I believe there is more to Time and its existence in Adimensional space than in 3D space.
From your own description, you appear to have given an assignation of Time as a 3Dimensional object or entity which exists as a "numerical order of the change in duration" of something. How do you account for this temporal ability? Does it have some sort of intelligence with which to accomplish such a feat? And when and how do you know when and if the Time has accomplished such. You only say that Time is a numerical order, etc. etc. But WHO is doing the measuring? Is Time doing the measuring?
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 05, 2012
If human is doing the measuring, then you must understand that Time is not involved. ONLY A HUMAN has the capability of measuring distance and duration with specialised instruments. TIME is not an entity that does the measuring. It is merely the name that was assigned to it in English as description or name for an intangible commodity that is perfectly abstract so that it really dwells in the mind of humans. Earlier, humans saw the need for such measurements of regular and equal proportions as they built their pyramids, etc. Therefore, it is the human intelligence itself that requires and performs the tasks of measuring distances and duration of events, etc.

My explanation of Time is merely to offer a possible scenario of the beginning of the universe and its components. Time and its Adimensional space were two of its components already existing. These are only a hypothesis of the big event and not absolute science, I must admit. But I have made my case anyway, as you have yours.
Tachyon8491
1.7 / 5 (6) May 05, 2012
Dear Russky - I do wish you had avoided the ad hominem about "your grandmother" - also, then, perhaps your grandmother would have better been able to follow my elucidation than you, as you suffered emormous misinterpretation of conceptual presentation here... When I say "change always takes place" that is axiomatic - deny its axiomaticism and this is partially philosophical instead of just pragmatic empiricism. When then I say that this implies the existence of "objective time" - this does NOT refer to its subjective perception, but to rate of change in causal evolutions. My thesis is that we need to avoid indirection in the scientific modelling of time - I feel we are not there, even conceptualising such useful concepts as planck time, chronons, or seconds. These may well work in experimental approximation but do not address the primary dynamics. Anyway, some seeds do not fall in fertile soil, it seems. Please do give my regards to your granny?
Tachyon8491
1.7 / 5 (6) May 05, 2012
Also Russky, your thesis of pre-extant time and a-dimensional space - that is, before the physicalisation of potential - is a philosophical axiom on your part without the slightest empirical evidence - as such it is "inductive philosophy" i.e. it guides your attentive focus in cognitive/analytical thinking and may lead to experimental methodology as it usually does (good luck)
What strikes me more, in my own perception, is that the actualisation of potential in cosmogenic ontology, as a "great synthesis" showing breakdown of cpt parity and assymetry in particle/antiparticle generation which is NOT understood yet, addresses not just "mere matter and energy" but unavoidably a more primary formative field. I have my ideas about that on which I wrote a 530-page academic book "The Nature of Being", 176 illustrations, 2300 index entries. Your grandmother might be interested? Regards ;)
Fleetfoot
not rated yet May 05, 2012
So I will have to agree that a slight imperfection in duration of transition must be tolerated. But not TOO much. That is something that the keepers of the beaker will have to work on.
Just as scientists are always trying to improve our best clocks. What matters though is only that we know by how much the durations vary from perfection.

We should understand that there is a "flow" of time, ..


Look out a train window and the countryside seems to "flow" past. You can also imagine that you are "flowing" across the countryside. Understand that we flow through time rather than time flowing past us and then that what we call time is the length of the path we take and you will understand what experiments tell us.

I believe that you actually mean the "duration" is being measured and Time as a force is being given the honor.
Time itself cannot be measured.


Duration is only a specific quantity of time as a "yardstick" is a specific quantity of length.
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) May 05, 2012
IMO What Fiscaletti (Sorli doesn't understand the math) is trying to do is to replicate the work of Jacob Laub. In 1908 he wrote several works together with Einstein on the basic electromagnetic equations, which was aimed to replace the four-dimensional formulation of the electrodynamics by Minkowski by a simpler, classical formulation. Both Laub and Einstein discounted the spacetime formalism as too complicated. However, it turned out that Minkowski's spacetime formalism was fundamental for the further development of special relativity.
Russkiycremepuff
1.9 / 5 (9) May 05, 2012
@Terriva
There is something in your pond analogy with which I am unclear. Perhaps you could elucidate, please. From what I see, you are disbelieving the Big Bang, yes? But in your analogy of universe as pond ripples, you have never stated the ORIGIN of those ripples. In your pond, the ripples or waves flow outward and, presumably, there is a center from which those ripples emerge and flow. The fishes under the waves are not in my question at this point.
But I must know the origin of your ripples or waves; the exact location of dead center where the ripples are from; and why ripples emanate from that center. Are the ripples continuous to flow outward, or will they slow down and possibly reverse? What is causing the ripples?
Please explain your AWT ripples. Thank you.
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) May 05, 2012
n your analogy of universe as pond ripples, you have never stated the ORIGIN of those ripples
The origin of ripples at the water pond is the same like the origin of light in the Universe - some wave sources randomly distributed around it. I don't care about the nature of the wave sources in this model, as it's irrelevant for the observed outcome.
But the point is, this light get dispersed with distance in similar way, like the ripples at the water surface (the wavelength of light increases), so that the distant light sources are simply unobservable, because the become infrared. Such distance limit doesn't imply the beginning of Universe though - if we would come closer to these distant light sources, we would see them again.
Try to imagine the water surface under slow rain. The fall of droplets at the water surface will become unobservable from the certain point at the surface with surface ripples, when these ripples will get dispersed before they can arrive to that point.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) May 05, 2012
The origin of ripples at the water pond is the same like the origin of light in the Universe - some wave sources randomly distributed around it. I don't care about the nature of the wave sources in this model, as it's irrelevant for the observed outcome.


Incorrect, if the source was distributed, then what we see would be the integral of sources from different distances and redshifts so the spectrum would be flattened on the IR side of the peak compared to a thermal curve. What we see is precisely thermal.

But the point is, this light get dispersed with distance in similar way, like the ripples at the water surface (the wavelength of light increases), ..


After all the discussion of dispersion, you still haven't grasped that it doesn't change the wavelength or frequency. Do we have to go through it all again?
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) May 05, 2012
so the spectrum would be flattened on the IR side of the peak compared to a thermal curve. What we see is precisely thermal
This is just a feature of thermal spectrum, it's flattened at the IR side.
the discussion of dispersion, you still haven't grasped that it doesn't change the wavelength or frequency
During spreading of ripples at the water surface their wavelength changes with distance in pronounced way. How do we should call this process - if not dispersion? I'll accept every proposal documented with linked source from you.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 05, 2012
Also Russky, your thesis of pre-extant time and a-dimensional space - that is, before the physicalisation of potential - is a philosophical axiom on your part without the slightest empirical evidence - as such it is "inductive philosophy" i.e. it guides your attentive focus in cognitive/analytical thinking and may lead to experimental methodology as it usually does (good luck)
What strikes me more, in my own perception, is that the actualisation of potential in cosmogenic ontology, as a "great synthesis" showing breakdown of cpt parity and assymetry in particle/antiparticle generation which is NOT understood yet, addresses not just "mere matter and energy" but unavoidably a more primary formative field. I have my ideas about that on which I wrote a 530-page academic book "The Nature of Being", 176 illustrations, 2300 index entries. Your grandmother might be interested? Regards ;)
- Tachyon -

She will be happy to read your book, but only in Cyrillic.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 05, 2012
@Terriva
I have been wondering if your pond ripple/wave concept may be compared to either a quasiperiodic motion or quasiperiodic function. They might not even apply. I do not know if such terms are appropriate to your pond analogy, but that is why I feel that it is imperative to know your starting point or beginning of ripple formation and their procession forward. You seem reluctant to address this.
What I now mean, is that if you disagree on Big Bang but only believe on randomness of universe and the string theory, then your pond ripples analogy is flawed in that randomness does not create universal ripple/waves, imo. Maybe only local but it still requires a catalyst to create ripples. Therefore your pond analogy could not relate to the natural formation of universe even if universe is closed.

"The origin of ripples at the water pond is the same like the origin of light in the Universe - some wave sources randomly distributed around it."
What is the origin/source of that light?
Russkiycremepuff
1.9 / 5 (9) May 05, 2012
For months I have been seeking evidence of Fibonacci structure in cosmic structure, specifically as it might relate to Big Bang, due to my belief that Fibonacci structure is universal, not just for earth's natural evolution of structural presentation such as seashells and flowers and distances of planets in relation to each other and the Sun..
But if you insist on randomness and no outward explosion of all matter and energy, then I cannot agree on your ripple hypothesis without frame of reference for source of ripples/waves and I would judge your presentation as pseudo science. You must have a starting point in your pond analogy, the catalyst if you will, that begins the ripples and motion to push those ripples away from center (Singularity).

Fibonacci Sequence for ripples/waves
{ {#} } - } - } - } - } - } - }
Cannot illustrate Fibonacci wave pattern Physorg will not allow
Fleetfoot
not rated yet May 06, 2012
so the spectrum would be flattened on the IR side of the peak compared to a thermal curve. What we see is precisely thermal.


This is just a feature of thermal spectrum, it's flattened at the IR side.

http://www.global...rves.png


That is the curve for a single source at one distance. Take copies of that curve but moved slightly to the right due to redshift at various distances and sum over all. What you get for the integral is a horizontal line extending right from the peak. That is what your suggested distributed source would produce, nothing like what is seen. To create what we see requires a source which is all at a single distance from us, a very thin spherical shell centered on us.
Fleetfoot
1 / 5 (1) May 06, 2012
the discussion of dispersion, you still haven't grasped that it doesn't change the wavelength or frequency


During spreading of ripples at the water surface their wavelength changes with distance in pronounced way.


The wavelength only changes if the depth of the water changes, the frequency doesn't change at all. When we look at the light from distant galaxies, the frequency is reduced compared to what was emitted.

How do we should call this process - if not dispersion? I'll accept every proposal documented with linked source from you.


We call it "redshift" because the frequency is reduced so blue light is moved towards the red end of the visible, but the effect occurs at all frequencies from gamma to low frequency radio astronomy.

http://en.wikiped...Redshift

Dispersion is a different effect that doesn't change the frequency:

http://en.wikiped...r_timing

We've been over all this before.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet May 06, 2012
http://people.rit.edu/andpph/photofile-c/splash-water-waves-4565.jpg


If the speed of the ripples was constant but the wavelength changed as the ripples moved, your picture would illustrate BLUE shift, exactly the opposite of the effect you are claiming! I pointed this out previously when you posted the same image, have you still not learned the difference?
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) May 06, 2012
The wavelength only changes if the depth of the water changes, the frequency doesn't change at all
The dispersion of ripples at this picture is apparently not dependent on depth, until you prove, these ripples are formed above centers of two holes. Sometimes the usage of common sense in thinking may be useful.
your picture would illustrate BLUE shift, exactly the opposite of the effect you are claiming
this picture illustrates the RED shift: the short wavelength ripples come first, long wavelength ripples are following them. The center of perturbation is at the center of circle, not outside of it.
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) May 06, 2012
Dispersion is a different effect that doesn't change the frequency
What about scattering? Is such word acceptable for you in connection to the explanation of the red-shift with density fluctuations of vacuum?
Fleetfoot
not rated yet May 06, 2012
Dispersion is a different effect that doesn't change the frequency
What about scattering? Is such word acceptable for you in connection to the explanation of the red-shift with density fluctuations of vacuum?


The correct term would be "Compton Scattering". Thomson Scattering classically is similar but is elastic so doesn't reduce the energy. Compton Scattering is inelastic so does reduce the energy and applies when the photon energy is greater than the particle mass:

http://en.wikiped...attering

It is also responsible for the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect:

http://en.wikiped...h_effect

However, the scattering must also change the momentum which would mean space was opaque. Franz Zwicky first proposed Tired Light as an explanation for redshift in 1929 and even in his original paper he noted that this ruled out scattering as a viable mechanism. See "Specific falsified models" here:

http://en.wikiped...ed_light
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) May 06, 2012
The wavelength only changes if the depth of the water changes, the frequency doesn't change at all

The dispersion of ripples at this picture is apparently not dependent on depth, until you prove, these ripples are formed above centers of two holes.


:-)

Agreed, so the depth is uniform and therefore so is the speed of the waves.

your picture would illustrate BLUE shift, exactly the opposite of the effect you are claiming


this picture illustrates the RED shift: the short wavelength ripples come first, long wavelength ripples are following them. The center of perturbation is at the center of circle, not outside of it.


The waves closest the centre have the longer wavelength or lower frequency, those farther from the centre have a shorter wavelength or higher frequency. As the waves move out from the source, the frequency INCREASES which is "blue shift".

Sometimes the usage of common sense in thinking may be useful.


Agreed, please try it.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) May 06, 2012
The waves closest the centre have the longer wavelength or lower frequency, those farther from the centre have a shorter wavelength or higher frequency. As the waves move out from the source, the frequency INCREASES which is "blue shift".


Note also that since the speed is uniform, the waves cannot be "bunching up", the increase in the number of ripples per metre must be due to knew ripples being added between the existing ones. Your explanation relies on the Ripple Fairy sprinkling new ripples into your waves as they move.

For red shift, the Ripple Fairy would be stealing some of your ripples.

I don't believe in your Ripple Fairy ;-)
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) May 06, 2012
scattering must also change the momentum which would mean space was opaque
Scattering is causing the red shift, which means, distant part of Universe are unobservable for us
Agreed, so the depth is uniform and therefore so is the speed of the waves.
I doubt it. The wavelength of ripples is changing and the speed of waves depends on it.
As the waves move out from the source, the frequency INCREASES which is "blue shift"
Nope, you're observing the result of single "Dirac" pulse, not steady state situation of harmonic wave.
since the speed is uniform, the waves cannot be "bunching up"...
Since it isn't because of changing wavelength and celerity curve, this comment is IMO irrelevant.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) May 06, 2012
Again an attempt at illustrating Fibonacci sequencing with Singularity as source of matter, light, everything. In this illustration, the asterisks * define Fibonacci sequences of 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,etc.
The } symbol defines the division between sequential Fibonacci numbers as distances from between each } symbol. I must use asterisks to avoid crunching together of the } symbols. Phys.org is not very lenient. Only going from dead center of Singularity toward the right for this illustration. But sequence is true for in a circular pattern going outward from Singularity. # symbol represents Singularity.

{#}*}**}***}*****}********}*************}*********************}*********************************}

I can only go up to 33 asterisks. If asterisks are removed, then illustration becomes a sequence of waves or even ripples from the source (Singularity).
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) May 06, 2012
- cont'd -
Further, if each } is moved to paper and followed in circular motion with compass with # (Singularity) in dead center, it is becoming cosmic equivalent of Fibonacci sequence directly from Big Bang Singularity.
Does Solar System come to your mind? Electrons, etc.? Distance from Black Hole center to accretion disk to EH?
It can even resemble Terriva's pond surface ripples, but not distance from one ripple to next. Eye of hurricane to outer edge?
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) May 06, 2012
Check the Fibonacci spiral and the golden mean ratio derivation to understand, how these things are related to dense aether model through particle packing geometry.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 06, 2012
Yes, thank you. But you STILL have not explained your source of the light and how the light is coming from your randomness of existence and reality. You have explained much about your ripples or waves and the redshift that explains the distance of ripple to ripple. But nothing about the source of all these wonderful things. Please describe in detail the source of the light and matter in universe.
For example, to my mind, a duck's egg is sitting in dead center of a pond; it suddenly moves and breaks. Perhaps cause by earthquake? With the movement of egg, waves or ripples spread out from that source as contents of broken egg spill outward and ride the crest of ripples/waves going far and faster from the source. This is not randomness. This is beginning of universe and redshifting of waves and egg contents away from broken egg. All the waves are in circular pattern all around the source, and if an observer stands on top of source, in every direction he looks, everything is red shift.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) May 06, 2012
In my ripples, they are not equidistant from each other, but each wave in its turn flows out from Singularity of egg as pulsation due to initial egg movement and explosion of contents. That pulsation continues from source until all contents are out and egg is no longer in motion. My example precludes all randomness as there must be a source of everything first, and afterward, localised randomness could be possible, but again with catalyst. Quasar can be catalyst for emitting light. Hurricane can be catalyst for emitting high winds.
Terriva, again I ask for your source of your ripples on water surface.
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) May 06, 2012
you STILL have not explained your source of the light and how the light is coming from your randomness of existence and reality
In dense aether model the universe is behaving like the very dense random gas and the stars and galaxies are overgrown density fluctuations of it. They do condense and evaporate again into neutrinos and photons randomly like the density fluctuations inside of dense gas. The radiation of stars is the process of their evaporation. The source of matter in the Universe is the vacuum itself, which is supposed to be formed with inertial matter too - the particles of observable matter are just condensing from it like the droplets from saturated vapor.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) May 06, 2012
scattering must also change the momentum which would mean space was opaque
Scattering is causing the red shift, which means, distant part of Universe are unobservable for us


If scattering were causing redshift, the stars in our own galaxy would not be visible, all the light from all stars would be scattered into a uniform background glow, like looking through fog.

Fleetfoot
3 / 5 (2) May 06, 2012
The dispersion of ripples at this picture is apparently not dependent on depth, until you prove, these ripples are formed above centers of two holes.


Agreed, so the depth is uniform and therefore so is the speed of the waves.


I doubt it.


I'm just agreeing your point, if there was a speed variation symmetrically around one source, it would not be symmetrical about the other so the ripples wouldn't be circular, they would be distorted. Consequently, we know the speed is uniform over the pond.

The wavelength of ripples is changing and the speed of waves depends on it.


If the speed and wavelength both change, the frequency remains the same so there is no red shift or blue shift.

You were claiming your picture illustrated a frequency shift (even if you got the sense wrong), now you are suggesting there isn't. Make your mind up.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 06, 2012
Terriva, maybe I have misunderstood you, but your description of your dense aether universe as nothing but gas of unequal volume in differing areas, which renders it random and in which somewhere within that dense gas there exists the stars and galaxies which are prone to eventually condense, then evaporate into neutrinos and photons before they transform again into gas, sounds like you have described "islands" in a cosmic ocean of primordial gas.
Are you saying that matter itself is manufactured by the vacuum of space? I assume that you mean that matter is transformed from the heated gas into matter?
You seem to indicate that the gas/aether has always existed, just transforming into matter and back again. That would mean, imo, that your aether universe is passive and not cataclysmic like the BB. Is that a correct approximation? But then, what about Time?

Terriva
1 / 5 (5) May 06, 2012
If scattering were causing redshift, the stars in our own galaxy would not be visible, all the light from all stars would be scattered into a uniform background glow, like looking through fog.
Yep, and we are calling it cosmic microwave background radiation.
Consequently, we know the speed is uniform over the pond.
But it can still depend on the wavelength, which increases with distance from source (it wouldn't violate the symmetry of the rings).
You were claiming your picture illustrated a frequency shift, now you are suggesting there isn't.
It illustrates both frequency both wavelength shift depending on the observational perspective (intrinsic/extrinsic one).
sounds like you have described "islands" in a cosmic ocean of primordial gas.
Well, density fluctuations.
matter itself is manufactured by the vacuum of space?
Yes, photons and neutrinos can materialize into heavier particles from pure vacuum (not heated gas).
Is that a correct approximation
Yes.
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) May 06, 2012
But then, what about Time?
I explained it already two times. The density fluctuations are forming density gradients similar to gradient of density at the water surface, which are forming space-time for us. The spatial dimensions are the directions parallel with the water surface, the temporal dimensions are the remaining direction perpendicular to it. In the vacuum the role of water surface is replaced with surface of membranes, forming the quantum foam. This space-time model is consistent with general relativity model, because the massive object will travel through it like the photons across gradient of water surface, i.e. about fastest path, called the geodesics. And it explains, why the spatial dimensions have no arrow, whereas the time has (between many other things).
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) May 06, 2012
The dense aether model is time symmetric, the entropy of observable Universe corresponds the entropy of its observer and it remains roughly constant (when some matter evaporates in it into radiation, some other matter is supposed to condense from radiation somewhere else). One half of universe (this one bellow the dimensional scale of human observer) appears expanding and it exhibits red shift in short-wavelength light (i.e. shorter than the wavelength of CMBR) - whereas the other half of Universe condenses with gravity and it should exhibit the blue shift in the long-wavelength light. It leads to the two-time model of the Universe.

People usually believe, that the time runs forward only. But it's antropocentric perspective only. You cannot decide the direction of time just from the motion - but only from the way, in which objects are changing their entropy.
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) May 06, 2012
Try to imagine, you're closed inside of dark empty room, which is covered with light noise like the TV set without signal. Inside of such random environment you couldn't decide, whether the time runs forward or backward. You'll need some definition of time arrow. Usually the physicists are using the radiative or entropic time arrows. The radiative time arrow says, in forward time the radiation always travels in the direction of temperature gradient. The entropic time arrow is very similar and based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics: it says, in forward time the entropy of isolated system always increases, never decreases. The gas tends to spontaneously expand in similar way, like the photons emanated with stars. And the heterogeneous mixtures would tend to homogenize. Is this universally true? Of course not, as inside of observable Universe both phenomena are actually very well balanced. The matter condenses from radiation and it evaporates somewhere else later.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) May 07, 2012
If scattering were causing redshift, the stars in our own galaxy would not be visible, all the light from all stars would be scattered into a uniform background glow, like looking through fog.
Yep, and we are calling it cosmic microwave background radiation.


So according to your model, there are no visible stars in our galaxy, or anything else visible beyond it!

Consequently, we know the speed is uniform over the pond.
But it can still depend on the wavelength,


Sure, but that's just dispersion, not a frequency shift, we have no argument about that.

.. which increases with distance from source (it wouldn't violate the symmetry of the rings).


The wavelength DECREASES with distance from the source.

You were claiming your picture illustrated a frequency shift, now you are suggesting there isn't.
It illustrates both frequency both wavelength shift ..


In which case the speed is constant, frequency increases and it is a blue shift.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) May 07, 2012
all the light from all stars would be scattered into a uniform background glow, like looking through fog.
Yep, and we are calling it cosmic microwave background radiation.


Nope, as I explained before, the spectrum would be virtually flat on the IR side of the thermal peak, a horizontal line on the graphic you posted. Compton Scaterring sounds OK qualitatively but fails hopelessly when you look in any detail.
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) May 07, 2012
So according to your model, there are no visible stars in our galaxy, or anything else visible beyond it
LOL, how did you come into it?
..that's just dispersion, not a frequency shift, we have no argument about that..
You told above, it's not dispersion, but a scattering.
The wavelength DECREASES with distance from the source.
This picture says the opposite. You even cannot interpret the single observation.
the spectrum would be virtually flat on the IR side of the thermal peak, a horizontal line on the graphic you posted
CMBR radiation just appears so, it's a thermal radiation.
Compton scattering sounds OK qualitatively but fails hopelessly when you look in any detail
Which is why I don't talk about Compton scattering at all. Do you think, the scattering of surface ripples can be described with Compton scattering? I don't think so...
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) May 07, 2012
Paul J. Steinhardt: Is the theory at the heart of modern cosmology deeply flawed?. Prof. Paul J. Steinhardt is director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and received the P.A.M. Dirac Medal from the International Center for Theoretical Physics in 2002 for his contributions to inflationary theory. Steinhardt is also known for postulating a new state of matter known as quasicrystals.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) May 07, 2012
@Terriva
Thank you for explanations. It seems like you are describing an equilibrium in random creation, degradation, and eventual disappearance (evaporation) of all matter, energies and gravitational forces to return to their basic components only to blend with membrane and then possibly a simultaneous popping up of either the same or other equal subatomic particles elsewhere in the membraneous gas to maintain equilibrium of all mass in the present existence since matter and energy are interchangeable as they can become one or the other, but not simultaneously both.
I can understand the need for an equilibrium on and within the membrane, as ~1/2 of the matter is within that membrane and no more can be created subatomically, unless there exists subatomic particles in preexisting occulting dimensions and I do not think that we wish to go there right now.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) May 07, 2012
And yet, there is still a need to determine from whence, why and how that membrane came into existence. I prefer to think that the membrane of string theory is the 3D space that exploded OUT of the Big Bang.
From the link you gave: http://phys.org/n...776.html
"Those laws are exquisitely accurate. Einstein mastered gravity with his theory of general relativity, and the equations of quantum theory capture every nuance of matter and other forces, from the attractive power of magnets to the subatomic glue that holds an atoms nucleus together.
But the laws cant be complete. Einsteins theory of gravity and quantum theory dont fit together. Some piece is missing in the picture puzzle of physical reality.
Bars thinks one of the missing pieces is a hidden dimension of time. "
"Of course, its not as simple as that. An extra dimension of time is not enough. You also need an additional dimension of space."
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) May 07, 2012
I believe it is possible that my hypothesis of Adimensional space fabric and Adimensional Time may correlate with the 3D membrane of string theory. It may very well be that Adimensional space/time is most compatible with it, as A-s/t does not interfere with the 3D space, whereas, yet another 3D time and space would most certainly interfere with the procedures of the existing 3D membrane.
But also imo, everything 3D emanated or exploded out of Big Bang Singularity first, before 3D membrane became established across universe. Our existence is 3D, which is why we cannot see Adimensionality yet. With proper instrumentation and methods, we will find it.
Membrane soup is logical, but there is a smack of metaphysics to it, in that the equilibrium that must be kept has to indicate an intelligence of some sort. Or it may be only that the physical Laws inherent in it specifically are conducive to certain processes due only to Laws and have no need of intellect.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) May 07, 2012
@Fleetfoot
".. which increases with distance from source (it wouldn't violate the symmetry of the rings)." - Terriva -

"The wavelength DECREASES with distance from the source." - Fleetfoot -

In my illustration at fourth comment from top of page, I show that with Fibonacci sequencing, in 2D and you are observer looking from the right side of page toward the Singularity, it seems from your perception that the intervals between the wavelengths are decreasing. Is that correct? But, in reality, they are neither increasing or decreasing. The wavelength remains the same. Similar is a long row of fenceposts in the countryside. When you look down the row from near a post by the road, it appears that the distances between the posts decrease or diminish as you follow the line into far distance. But it is simple optical illusion from your vantage point of looking toward what could be beginning of the row.
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) May 07, 2012
Adimensional space fabric and Adimensional Time
I would rather say, this concept correlates with aether model, because the particles of aether are supposed to be atemporal zero dimensional objects. Whereas the strings are 1D at least..
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) May 07, 2012
- cont'd -
However, in 3D wavelength, from beginning of egg or Singularity, the wavelength does increase due to pulsation effect on waves that makes the first waves out go faster and lengthens trough in between waves as seen in Fibonacci sequencing. I hope I have said this well enough.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) May 07, 2012
Another example: you are cosmonaut standing on dark side of the moon. A powerful telescope has already been built on moon and you are looking through it at limited arcseconds area of the sky away from the Milky Way into very clear intergalactic space. As you gaze at many galaxies, you notice that the farthest ones away from you (redshifted) seem to have longer distance between each other, and the ones closer to you seem to have shorter distance between each other. This is Fibonacci expansion of universe, because since YOU are the observer, you are acting in place of Singularity as though it is you who are center of universe. Thusly, everything that you see in farthest distances appear to have more distance between each galaxy, but intervals of distance keep getting shorter the closer the galaxies are to you. This is in straight line of sight, of course. It is beautiful cosmic geometry that is very consistent with Fibonacci.

Terriva 1D string theory? I doubt it is only 1D. Which one?
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) May 08, 2012
I am not sure I have said previous examples correctly. Please disregard and let me know what part is wrong. Thank you.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) May 08, 2012
..you notice that the farthest ones away from you (redshifted) seem to have longer distance between each other, and the ones closer to you seem to have shorter distance between each other. This is Fibonacci expansion of universe, because since YOU are the observer...I am not sure I have said previous examples correctly...
You didn't demonstrate, the red shift has something to do with Fibonacci series at all. A logical connection is missing here.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) May 08, 2012
In my illustration at fourth comment from top of page, I show that with Fibonacci sequencing, in 2D and you are observer looking from the right side of page toward the Singularity,


The first thing to note is that "singularity" is a mathematical term which refers to the behaviour of the equations we use to describe the universe, it is not an object. For example y=1/y has a singularity at x=0. In cosmology, it just means the very early time when our maths becomes unstable and cannot make a prediction.

the second point to note is that since the laws of physics are universal (by definition, if they didn't apply everywhere, they wouldn't be "laws"). The conditions that the maths fails to describe happened everywhere at the same time (in the first millisecond after the "bang") so when you say "toward the Singularity", it doesn't really make any sense.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) May 08, 2012
..it seems from your perception that the intervals between the wavelengths are decreasing. Is that correct? But, in reality, they are neither increasing or decreasing.


In reality, they decrease (though not the way you show, more later) while in "Terriva"'s picture they increase, his choice of picture is hopelessly flawed, he doesn't understand the phenomenon at all.

Similar is a long row of fenceposts in the countryside. When you look down the row from near a post by the road, it appears that the distances between the posts decrease or diminish as you follow the line into far distance. But it is simple optical illusion ...


Suppose you look down the line of poles and by measuring carefully using parallax, you find they are equally spaced. You also see three cars on the road, the first just crossing the shadow of 10th pole from you, the second at the 20th and the third at the 30th pole.

(to be continued)
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) May 08, 2012
(contd.)

Each car has a horn and you know that by law they must all emit the same note when measured by someone standing next to the car when parked.

You have a directional microphone which you point at the first car 10 poles away. You measure the frequency and find it is a little low, then using the formula for the Doppler Effect you work out the car is moving at 20mph.

http://en.wikiped...r_effect

You point the microphone at the second car 20 poles away and note the frequency is even lower. You find the car is moving at 40mph. For the third car the horn note you record is the lowest and you calculate it is moving at 60mph.

When the sound from each car horn is being measured, it is moving through the same air just in front of the microphone so the lower frequencies will have a longer wavelength.

The actual process is slightly different but it is the same as Doppler for objects within a few million light years.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) May 08, 2012
(contd.)

Terriva is claiming that all three cars are actually parked and that thinking they are moving is an illusion. Instead he belives that each time the sound passes a telegraph pole, some of the peaks and troughs of the wave get lost so by the time they reach us, those that remain are spaced farther apart (but have somehow managed to shuffle about so they remain exactly equally spaced).

By a remarkable coincidence, the fraction of cycles lost at each pole is proportional to the number of waves between that pole and the next which gives the illusion that the cars' speeds are proportional to the distance from the microphone.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) May 08, 2012
For example y=1/y has a singularity at x=0.


That should of course read "y=1/x has a singularity at x=0", just a typo, sorry.

AmritSorli
1.5 / 5 (8) May 09, 2012
Regarding time there is one fundamental question: is time a mass/energy phenomenon? If yes than time is a physical dimension, if not time is exclusively a mathematical dimension. I consider time being only a mathematical dimension, namely numerical order of change. In my view time is not a mass/energy phenomenon, but it has physical existence as a numerical order of change. This means mathematics has its independent existence of the human mind, mathematics is a intrinsic quantity of the physical world, but is not a mass/energy phenomena.
Origin
1 / 5 (5) May 09, 2012
there is one fundamental question: is time a mass/energy phenomenon?
Yes, because it has a meaning only in connection with some mass/energy changes. We don't start from the very beginning in time description, as we have a relativity theory, which describes the motion of massive object along geodesics of space-time fairly well and every new theory of time should therefore explain, why this model works so well.

In dense aether model it's because the concept of space-time is always connected with some gradient of vacuum density. In dense aether theory the transverse waves cannot spread without such a gradient, the light waves are no exception. With respect to the mass spreading this gradient is behaving in similar way, like the gradient at the water surface with respect to the light spreading and the principle of least action can be applied to it. This model therefore attributes the time to physical dimension of physical object: gradient of aether density, forming the space-time.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet May 09, 2012
Regarding time there is one fundamental question: is time a mass/energy phenomenon? If yes than time is a physical dimension, if not time is exclusively a mathematical dimension. I consider time being only a mathematical dimension, namely numerical order of change. In my view time is not a mass/energy phenomenon ..


Hulse and Taylor showed that a binary system containing a pulsar and a neutron star is losing orbital energy at a rate of 7.35×10^24 watts exactly matching the GR prediction for gravitational waves.

http://en.wikiped...913%2B16

That energy propagates as ripples in spacetime at the speed of light hence the momentum they carry equals the energy.

In regions midway between two binary systems, where the gravitational waves overlap, they will produce standing waves. Those have the sum of the energies but the momenta being vectors partly cancel thus such standing waves in spacetime have an effective mass density.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) May 09, 2012
Regarding time there is one fundamental question: is time a mass/energy phenomenon? If yes than time is a physical dimension, if not time is exclusively a mathematical dimension. I consider time being only a mathematical dimension, namely numerical order of change. ..


Note also that as well as energy, gravitational waves carry momentum. Look up "gravitational wave recoil" for recent work and this site for some interesting simulations:

http://www.black-...ick.html

You may also want to think about what "dimension" means in our language, I could also say that distance is "only a mathematical dimension, namely numerical order of location". Ultimately, what general relativity tells us (and SR via the geomtrical understanding of the Minkowski Metric) is that space and time are partly interchangeable. However, you look at time must also apply to space.
Origin
1 / 5 (7) May 09, 2012
That energy propagates as ripples in spacetime at the speed of light hence the momentum they carry equals the energy.
This is just a speculation. This energy may propagate like the atemporal noise, in form of neutrino flux, etc.. as well.

In dense aether model the gravitational waves correspond the underwater density (sound) waves, which are propagating like the Brownian noise at the water surface. Therefore the gravitational waves are still waves in extradimensional hyperspace, but because they do propagate in extradimensions with superluminal speed, they're not detectable like the harmonic wave in our space-time. Instead of it, we would perceive them like less or more sudden changes of CMBR noise intensity/frequency, coming from all directions at the same way.
Origin
1 / 5 (5) May 09, 2012
In regions midway between two binary systems, where the gravitational waves overlap, they will produce standing waves
This model explains, why we observed the slowing of rotation of binary pulsars - but we didn't observe any gravitational waves yet. These pulsars simply contributed to the CMBR noise with their gravitational waves.

The derivation of gravitational waves from stress energy tensor in general relativity is fringe, because in general relativity these waves are serving as a reference frame for itself (without existence of gravitational wave you have no reference frame defined and therefore the speed of gravitational wave remains undefined). The mathematicians missed this important point completely and they derived the gravitational waves from Einstein's pseudotensor, which has reference frame defined even at the completely flat space-time. However Hermann Weyl proved in 1944 already, the Einstein's pseudotensor doesn't exist

http://www.jstor..../2371768
Origin
1 / 5 (6) May 09, 2012
Is everything entangled? Authors show that big bang cosmology implies a high degree of entanglement of particles in the universe. In fact, a typical particle is entangled with many particles far outside our horizon. However, the entanglement is spread nearly uniformly so that two randomly chosen particles are unlikely to be directly entangled with each other -- the reduced density matrix describing any pair is likely to be separable.

It brings the recent controversy (1, 2) on mind. IMO the authors forget the decoherence concept, which would destroy such an entanglement (even if it would exist) quite soon even at the case of quite close particles.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) May 09, 2012
In regions midway between two binary systems, where the gravitational waves overlap, they will produce standing waves
This model explains, why we observed the slowing of rotation of binary pulsars - but we didn't observe any gravitational waves yet. These pulsars simply contributed to the CMBR noise with their gravitational waves.


Complete rubbish, the CMBR is EM obviously, not gravitational, and the orbital period of the binary is 7.75 hours while the CMBR is at microwave frequencies!

The reason why they cannot be detected gravitationally is two-fold, first they are several orders of magnitude below the sensitivity of LIGO and second the orbital period of the binary is 7.75 hours but LIGO is drowned out by terrestrial background below about 100Hz.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) May 09, 2012
That energy propagates as ripples in spacetime at the speed of light hence the momentum they carry equals the energy.
This is just a speculation.


Nope, it is a robust measurement tracked over many years. You don't get the Nobel Prize without a lot of other scientists having peer reviewed it and failing to find fault even though they wanted it for themselves.

This energy may propagate like the atemporal noise, in form of neutrino flux, etc.. as well.


Don't be silly, moving astronomical masses around doesn't generate neutrinos and emission of neutrinos would have no effect on their orbital kinetic energy anyway.
Origin
1 / 5 (5) May 09, 2012
Nope, it is a robust measurement tracked over many years.

It wasn't direct observation of gravitational waves. It was observation of pulsar frequency. Everything between it is just a speculation - can you distinguish this difference? A true scientist never confuses experimental facts with extrapolations of these facts - no matter, how well they're reasoned with some theory or not.
moving astronomical masses around doesn't generate neutrinos
Only energetic gravitational waves can make a neutrino solitons. After all, the photons of radiowaves don't exist as well.
Origin
1 / 5 (4) May 09, 2012
they are several orders of magnitude below the sensitivity of LIGO
It's not true, some gravitational waves should be observable already (not just from pulsars).

http://www.kosmol...lity.gif
Fleetfoot
not rated yet May 09, 2012
Nope, it is a robust measurement tracked over many years.

It wasn't direct observation of gravitational waves. It was observation of pulsar frequency. Everything between it is just a speculation - can you distinguish this difference? A true scientist never confuses experimental facts with extrapolations of these facts - no matter, how well they're reasoned with some theory or not.


Very little in science is direct observation, everything is inferred from instrument readings. We don't even dip a thermometer into the surface of the Sun and infer its temperature from the expansion of some red-coloured alcohol, we infer it from the spectrum.

moving astronomical masses around doesn't generate neutrinos
Only energetic gravitational waves can make a neutrino solitons.


Rubbish.

After all, the photons of radiowaves don't exist as well.


Of course they do, the photoelectric effect and black body spectrum prove EM is in the form of particles.
Tachyon8491
1 / 5 (5) May 09, 2012
losing orbital energy at a rate of 7.35×10^24 watts...


As a rate, you should have expressed this as a quantity versus time - e.g. 7,35 x 10^24 W/s
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) May 09, 2012
losing orbital energy at a rate of 7.35×10^24 watts...


As a rate, you should have expressed this as a quantity versus time - e.g. 7,35 x 10^24 W/s


Watts are already a rate, i.e. Joule/second

http://en.wikiped...iki/Watt
Tachyon8491
1 / 5 (5) May 09, 2012
Yes of course W/s but also expressible as work done in a time period, which is what I considered your initial statement to refer to as in e.g. power x time, W/s in a time period of x seconds. Are you only referring to instantaneous power in your statement of 7 x 10^ watts? Or was this intended as an energy loss over time?
Fleetfoot
not rated yet May 09, 2012
Yes of course W/s but also expressible as work done in a time period, which is what I considered your initial statement to refer to as in e.g. power x time, W/s in a time period of x seconds. Are you only referring to instantaneous power in your statement of 7 x 10^ watts? Or was this intended as an energy loss over time?


It is the instantaneous rate at which the system is losing energy, but it is roughly a constant rate. The figure comes from the Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikiped...r_system

Which references:

http://www.staff....alk2.pdf

The calculation is on page 29 of 38.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) May 09, 2012
Of course they do, the photoelectric effect and black body spectrum prove EM is in the form of particles.

This is just the point - the diluted gas doesn't exhibit the black body spectrum and the spectrum of dense environment is continuous, because it doesn't emanate photons of particular energies, but a whole clusters of photons entangled with energy levels undefined. And the photoelectric effect doesn't work with microwaves and radiowaves.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet May 09, 2012
The wavelength DECREASES with distance from the source.
http://people.rit.edu/andpph/photofile-c/splash-water-waves-4565.jpg says the opposite. You even cannot interpret the single observation.


You must be looking at some other photo, here it is marked up.

http://www.flickr...7517344/

The wavelenngth is obviously shorter at the bottom of the screen, farther from the source. The longer the waves travel, the higher the frequency which is exactly the opposite of redshift.

In reality, the first few ripples were emitted at a higher frequency, they aren't actually changing as they move but even as an analogy for Tired Light, it is the wrong way round.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) May 09, 2012
http://www.dummie...ity.html

I knew with some trepidation that I would have to reread the principles of both General Relativity and Special Relativity. I found a website that is called "Special Relativity for Dummies" and that suited me well as non-scientist, as I have not so much of the time to read the big volumes as in my youth and can only spare a little for my hypothesis of Adim-s/T, which is my shortened for Adimensional space/time. I had shortened it to A-s/T, but it was not descriptive enough.
SR and GR work very well mathematically, but both are obviously attuned to the category of 3 normal dimensions plus 3D time. Very handy for Einstein. Aether wave is, I think, also 3D plus the 3D time and thus in agreement with the SR and GR. But in Adim-s/T, there is the other s//T that has always existed before the 3D space and what you like to call 3Dtime spread out of Big Bang Singularity into universe.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) May 09, 2012
Mr. Sorli suggests that the 3Dimensional time is not dimensional at all and I do agree with that.

Terriva's AWT is claimed to be steady state of foam-like material consisting of sub-atomic particles that have properties from which matter, energy and forces like gravity and EM somehow ignite into stars and the star clusters may become galaxies. All presumably within that primordial soup or foam which we call 3Dimensional space that seems to have no particular source or beginning for it.
It is my understanding that the "Compton Scattering" only occurred within about 380 million years after BB while the universe was very opaque and dense, but that scattering is what propagated the first elements of Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium through subatomic particles interacting with each other. I think that it is classical Thompson as weaker process than Compton that was involved in your dense Aether at beginning. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) May 09, 2012
But your dense Aether still does not explain from whence that Aether began, and you seem to indicate that it has always existed. It had to have a genesis of sorts. Was its genesis from the Big Bang Singularity?

Time dilation does not occur even with gravitational lensing. It is the Force of Gravity only that bends the light photons.
In this page:
http://www.astro....tvty.htm
Under heading of Time Dilation, the author attempts to explain that time is causing contraction of objects such as a clock in motion. But I believe it to be the red shifting of light that only makes it appear to be contracting, since a person (B) with the moving clock sees normal time and space. And yet, person (A) with the supposedly stationary clock says that his clock is normal in time and space but that B is running slow. While B is moving, A is also moving away from B and A is subjected to the rotation of the earth in relation to B. They are mutually moving away from each other.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) May 09, 2012
They are mutually moving away from each other, thusly increasing distance. Therefore, both A and B are RED SHIFTING AWAY and increasing distance, but not time. Time can only MEASURE as a tool how the incremental length of distance between A and B related to the incremental length of perceived clock times as both clocks relate to each other. So, it is not incremental time that is causing any contracting of object and slowing down its movement, it is the gravity of the moving clock and of B that drags it back from potential of c.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) May 10, 2012
On same page, under heading of General Relativity, it is the second illustration of radius of a circle that illustrates somewhat well the Fibonacci Sequence which relates to the Big Bang Singularity in the center and explosion of all matter and energy outward in waves. But unlike the 2D circle, the 3D Fibonacci expansion of matter and energy is NOT exactly equidistant between waves, and is caused by pulsation of Singularity, similar almost to a living object. Imagine a round lawn sprinkler that shoots water in every direction from center. I cannot think of a good equivalent example at this moment. I believe it is the pulsation that had caused the Thompson scattering in early universe that led to stars forming, and then gravitation pulling stars into a galaxy.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) May 10, 2012
Spherical isotropy may be uniform as to velocity of light, but time is not a true dimension even though coupled with 3D space, and therefore, not isotropic even when measuring of distance together with timing of speed of light. So many attempts at coupling time with space as though time is fourth dimension. But it is my belief that all behaviours and interactions are results of Gravity and Electromagnetic Forces and only use the time as a tool to measure such Forces.
Time Dilation in: http://www.astro....tvty.htm
is simply illustrative of those Forces acting upon 3D matter. Where is time that they believe to make the differences? It is like the bouncing ball OF THE IMAGINATION, and not dimensional.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) May 10, 2012
I was very interested with this article from JPL regarding WISE telescope, as it seems to comply with your Aether wave. I am interpreting your Aether as being everywhere in the universe, and this aging star in the link is drifting within the Aether, as is the dust and X-ray. et al, along with stars and galaxies. Therefore, your AWT is another expression of 3D space material.
I would like to know, is this Aether that you believe also the Dark Matter and Dark Energy? For me, the DM and DE are Adimentional.

http://www.jpl.na...2012-118

"Instead, one scenario they propose is that a giant elliptical galaxy was inundated with gas more than nine billion years ago. Early in the history of our universe, networks of gas clouds were common, and they sometimes fed growing galaxies, causing them to bulk up. The gas would have been pulled into the galaxy by gravity, falling into orbit around the center and spinning out into a flat disk.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) May 10, 2012
- cont'd -
Stars would have formed from the gas in the disk."

http://www.jpl.na...2012-115 Another galaxy to form from your Aether?
http://www.jpl.na...2012-094 In this example of aging or old galaxy, star forming gas is leaving. Does that conform to your Aether as gaseous material where stars and galaxies form, and where the old ones degrade into their subatomic components to disappear back into the Aether?
Fleetfoot
not rated yet May 10, 2012
I knew with some trepidation that I would have to reread the principles of both General Relativity and Special Relativity. I found a website that is called "Special Relativity for Dummies" and that suited me well as non-scientist, ..


That page is OK but it doesn't convey the core understanding of dimensions in SR. If you look up "Parable of the Surveyors" in Google, you'll find pages like this which explain it more clearly:

http://spiff.rit....ble.html

That should explain the key point.

SR and GR work very well mathematically, but both are obviously attuned to the category of 3 normal dimensions plus 3D time.


No, SR and GR work in 4D while aether theory uses 3D space with time as a measure of change, not a dimension, that change is why Einstein is famous.

Start with a piece of paper which of course is 2D. Draw a line and call it the X axis. To add a Y axis, just draw another line crossing it at 90 degrees.

...
Fleetfoot
not rated yet May 10, 2012
(contd)

In SR, you can do almost the same with three axes for space and one for time (showing readings from a clock). In 4D, imagine