(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 special relativity - 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 fourth dimension of space that lacks any experimental support. 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, 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 3D space,” 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 phenomena starts at the scale of pi mesons.”
He also explained that, without length contraction, time dilation 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 time 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 space 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:
Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension
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
Terriva
2.1 / 5 (14) Apr 14, 2012onlinementor
2.1 / 5 (11) Apr 14, 2012Why 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, 2012Terriva
1.1 / 5 (9) Apr 14, 2012Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (31) Apr 14, 2012They 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, 2012Fact trumps theory every time.
Pressure2
2.8 / 5 (12) Apr 14, 2012Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (29) Apr 14, 2012This 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, 2012It'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, 2012muha
2.7 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2012Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (31) Apr 14, 2012Wrong. 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, 2012There 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.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (34) Apr 14, 2012But, 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.
philip_starkey
4.5 / 5 (15) Apr 14, 2012Maybe 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, 2012http://www.vacuum...mid=6=en
Smellyhat
4.2 / 5 (9) Apr 14, 2012"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, 2012When 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, 2012Smashin_Z_1885
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 15, 2012Smashin_Z_1885
1 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2012Smashin_Z_1885
1.3 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2012Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 15, 2012bluehigh
1 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2012Hmm .. they may as well go try separate electro-magnetism next.
McQ
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 15, 2012Beautiful! 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, 2012Code_Warrior
2.3 / 5 (4) Apr 15, 2012Egleton
1 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2012The 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, 2012That 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 -
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, 2012Such 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...
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, 2012perrycomo
1.6 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2012Terriva
1.1 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2012Glyndwr
1.3 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2012Though Nature has had complaints about being dogmatic in respects to some research areas
Rww
1 / 5 (4) Apr 15, 2012brodix
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2012That 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, 2012Subjective 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, 2012Claudius
2.5 / 5 (11) Apr 15, 2012Terriva
1 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2012Terriva
1 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2012rwinners
1.2 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2012I won't get into the argument concerning other universes, or even the size of our own.
MrVibrating
1.8 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2012And 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, 2012Brainooze
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 15, 2012brodix
1 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2012It 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, 2012This is how i feel right now. What is my time doing
Uncle_Ivan
1 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2012I 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, 2012Argiod
1 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2012It 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, 2012Schaps
1.2 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2012CardacianNeverid
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2012Sure, science has limitations. That's not new.
So what is your brilliant alternative to the scientific method?
CardacianNeverid
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2012No, they neither worked mathematically nor physically, which is why they were dumped.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2012They 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, 2012Time 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, 2012second 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, 2012However, 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, 2012CardacianNeverid
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2012So time is an emergent property? How do you square that with relativity?
alfie_null
not rated yet Apr 16, 2012If the metric is the amount of response generated, this was a good pick.
Tachyon8491
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2012Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2012Then an atom should lose energy simply by existing. It doesn't.
Tachyon8491
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2012Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (27) Apr 16, 2012As 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, 2012http://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, 2012It 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, 2012You 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, 2012Time 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?
casualjoe
1 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2012Joe
BoxPopuli
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2012Amrit 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, 2012From 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, 2012Maybe 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, 2012Job001
1 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2012Deathclock
2 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2012Terriva
1 / 5 (9) Apr 16, 2012Deathclock
1 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2012Agreed, 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, 2012The 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, 2012Hence 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, 2012Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2012You 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, 2012Two 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, 2012Deathclock
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2012So 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, 2012Time 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, 2012So 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, 2012Right, 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, 2012No. 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, 2012Fleetfoot
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2012I'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, 2012Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2012Another 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, 2012antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2012More 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, 2012Aether 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, 2012Don'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, 2012I 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, 2012Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2012Correct, 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, 2012In 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, 2012http://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, 2012So 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, 2012I'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, 2012brodix
1.2 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2012Time 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, 2012I 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, 2012IMO, 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, 2012You 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, 2012Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 17, 2012Not 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:
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, 2012Gravitational waves are transverse quadrupole
I see you have no clue what the articles you cite are actually saying.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2012Who? Let's see his credentials.
No it couldn't, anything getting closer than the event horizon reaches the centre in finite proper time.
There are no stable orbits inside r=3m, the event horizon is at r=2m.
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 17, 2012Change 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, 2012So, I guess it's wrong.
But what they're saying here is not 100% sensible to me.
Terriva
1 / 5 (9) Apr 17, 2012Gravitational 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, 2012Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 17, 2012Next 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, 2012Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2012By magic? I don't think so.
Ethelred
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) Apr 17, 2012Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2012See the high school physics I posted for you last time you made this mistake.
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.
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 17, 2012http://en.wikiped...n#Energy
It was a dumb idea in 1748 and that hasn't changed.
Ethelred
Chakir_Abdi
1 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2012Your 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, 2012You're good in downvoting, but I'm good in logics.
Russkiycremepuff
2.1 / 5 (14) Apr 17, 2012The 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, 2012The 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, 2012Time, 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, 2012Hi 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, 2012Deathclock
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 17, 2012There is no "out"... once something goes in it stays in.
This is a non-sequitur, what you said does not support this conclusion.
Eventually sure... but what is time inside an EH?
brodix
1.5 / 5 (6) Apr 17, 2012The 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, 2012Deathclock
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 17, 2012Prove me wrong.
Deathclock
1.7 / 5 (9) Apr 17, 2012Change 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, 2012Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2012Well, that's what I said :)
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.
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, 2012No... 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, 2012The 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, 2012Our 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, 2012Again, sorry.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2012In 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.
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, 2012No, 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, 2012As 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, 2012The 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, 2012Time 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, 2012I 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, 2012What 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, 2012Actually 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, 2012The 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, 2012Actually, 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)
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, 2012A 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.
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, 2012Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2012Oh 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, 2012Right, that's solid evidence that this does not apply to our universe, but it could to others.
Russkiycremepuff
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 17, 2012The 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, 2012Weeelllll, 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, 2012Gawad
not rated yet Apr 17, 2012You said it better than I did, that's for sure!
Deathclock
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 17, 2012antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2012What 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, 2012No, 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, 2012There 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, 2012Unfortunately 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, 2012Here 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.
And yet they do.
They move at the speed of light as perturbations in a flat background, and that value is of course frame independent.
In Lorentz's aether which you are trying to describe, the CMBR didn't exist.
Deathclock
1 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2012No, 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, 2012I 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, 2012brodix
1 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2012Say 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, 2012But you have no experimental evidence for it. Experiments are always going first in physics, theories and god wishes later...
Again, you have no experimental evidence for it and theory is against it. Sorry...Dense aether model is not based on Lorentz aether.
brodix
1 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2012There 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, 2012You use many complicated words, but I can not see your meaning. Is your goal to communicate?
AmritSorli
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 20122.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, 2012http://phys.org/n...ion.html
Anyway...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, 2012If 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, 2012How the experiment described in the article differs from Michelson-Morley experiment?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Apr 18, 2012That'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, 2012Gravity 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, 2012Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2012By 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.
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, 2012The math is still timelike. Any attempt to change that tends to be a mess.
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, 2012Change 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.
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, 2012Except 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.
Whether you believe or not the experiments match the theories. Your belief is completely irrelevant to reality.>>
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2012OK 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, 2012Thank 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, 2012That 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, 2012Jack 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, 2012Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2012That 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.
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.
The universe is not required to be "convenient".
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2012It will the same in all theories, it is determined by the fact that it is spin 2 and massless.
But you have no experimental evidence for it.
Hulse and Taylor provided that evidence.
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.
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, 2012Thank 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:
It seems entities like you serve no informational purpose.
BoxPopuli
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2012This 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, 2012BoxPopuli
2 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2012No 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, 2012BTW, 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, 2012The 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, 2012The 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, 2012When 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"[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, 2012They 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.
There is no "discussion", they made an accurate measurement which matches the predicted value, those are the facts.
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, 2012I 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)
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, 2012brodix
1 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2012It 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, 2012Time can certainly be abolished as the fourth dimension because;
GRAVITY is TIME
youtube.com/watch?v=fGuMyXYlhc4
atso
1 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2012See my book: "Two Dimensions of Time" (Peter Lange, 2003)
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (14) Apr 18, 2012AmritSorli
1 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2012in 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, 2012in 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, 2012Well, 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, 2012I am trying to go on facts and use words to deal with the facts not play a semantics game with social definitions.
A property of an individual is a not a basic property of any universe.
Does not have to be a basic property of the Universe.
Ditto and ditto.
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, 2012Temperature is a measurement of the kinetic energy of moving atoms. So it emerges from velocity and the energy carried by the atoms.
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, 2012The 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.
Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2012They 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
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2012It is infantile to call all rational disagreements with you an ad hominem. I made no such attack.
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.
I completely agree. Why didn't you try doing that?
So quit pooping on the discussion with mindless philosophy that isn't at all relevant.
Ethelred
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2012Additional confirmations always increase our confidence but theirs is the first.
Right, and the discrepancies between it and reality show it to be wrong. GR passed Hulse and Talor's test.
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, 2012You are laughable, Armpit. Just laughable.
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2012You...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
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2012There are too many anomalies to consider it anymore than an approximation or maybe even a special case.
brodix
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2012All 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.
Time is a measure of the change caused by movement.
No movement, no measurement, no spacetime, aka absolute0.
If you could measure vacuum fluctuation, that measurement is its temperature
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2012...............................................................
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, 2012Oh! 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, 2012You are even more laughable.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Apr 19, 2012By 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, 2012Chakir_Abdi
1 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2012TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2012That sounds more like engineering and less like physics to me but who knows?Were any of those presented in your role as metaphysician?
Chakir_Abdi
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2012TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2012"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?Apparently you are. I think you may be on the wrong track.
THE_ANTIPHILO
1.4 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2012Scientists 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!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"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, 2012It isn't a Netwonion absolute because EVERYONE will get the same result if they measure the speed of light.
Time IS a dimension of Space-time it is NOT extra dimesional.
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, 2012Absolute nonsense.
If if if. And wrong. Its energy/mass.
Ethelred
Tachyon8491
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 19, 2012You 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, 2012Its "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, 2012Of 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, 2012Presumably 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, 2012Yes for expanding spacetime and other planets, but the other ones you mention is still not proven.
Deathclock
1.3 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2012There 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, 2012So you are not from Earth then. From some alien species that has done that.
Excuse me, we have proved the Universe is expanding.
No. But you appeared to say that humans are a basic property of the Universe.
Normally it doesn't fade it just changes.
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, 2012There cannot be change without time.
Not relevant as that can't happen due to the Uncertainty Principle.
The Universe does not need us to exist.
So then electrons mean we don't have time according to that idea.
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, 2012Please 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, 2012Yes, and I stated this... but the opposite is also true.
So what? You can't follow a hypothetical?
What does that mean, I didn't claim anything of the sort...
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, 2012Yes, and without change there can be no time, they are fundamentally linked as one is a measure of the other.
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).
I agree, change is what ACTUALLY happens... time is a concept used to measure it.
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, 2012You'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, 2012But 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, 2012What 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, 2012FWIW, 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, 2012Gawad
2 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2012There'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.
If you're talking about extra-solar planets, yes, as we even have some direct imaging of at least one of these.
No. these are PURE SPECULATION and can most probably never be proven enven in principle.
Again, pure speculation.
Almost irrefutable at this point, but still not "proof".
This is a research program. I'm not sure "proof" is really the right concept here.
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, 20121st, 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, 2012End of story, this is simply how the science works.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, 2012Oh 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, 2012Gawad
4 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2012That's right, it means at the END POINT of all stellar evolution and that's dead, dead, DEAD.A fantasy with no evidence whatsoever. Please.Yeah, so do hand waving shadow puppets.
Gawad
4 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2012No, 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, 2012You're just a plain negativist - and hopelessly delusional crackpot.
brodix
1.2 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2012I 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, 2012No you idiot! BB dates from the 30's, inflation from the 80's.
No, that predates the 80's too! Get an education, man, or just a clue!
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.
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, 2012Posssibly. 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, 2012Terriva
1.3 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2012TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2012http://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.'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, 2012State-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, 2012Xian 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, 2012Hopscotching 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, 2012Uncertain: 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.?
When you misrepresent evidence in the hope of pushing fantasies, that's CRAP and you're going to get called on it.Look in the mirror, pal.I'm shattered. (As an asside, you obviously have no idea what really goes on in professional physics, do you!)
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, 2012Terriva
1 / 5 (10) Apr 20, 2012Gawad
4.8 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2012Then 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, 2012And 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, 2012These 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, 2012Moebius
1 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2012Some 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, 2012Fur 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, 2012Do 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, 2012No, 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, 2012Deathclock 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, 2012The 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, 2012The 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, 2012The 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, 2012Plus, 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, 2012I 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, 2012You 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, 2012It 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, 2012Terriva
1 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2012Terriva
1 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2012At 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- 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, 2012Terriva
1 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2012http://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, 2012Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2012Time 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, 20121. 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, 2012Ethelred
Vinic
1 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2012Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2012So 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
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, 2012So 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
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, 2012Not 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.
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.
Yes. And it is a silly hypothetical as it would require a miraculous CHANGE in the Universe.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2012Change is local. At present even in the SR sense as no information has ever been transmitted at FTL.
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, 2012Time is real as it is part of space-time it is not just a concept.
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.
Horse manure. I am not being dogmatic. I am asking a very reasonable question.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2012If 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.
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, 2012What 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?
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, 2012As 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, 2012But 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, 2012From 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, 2012Damn, the phys.org comment section can't interpret a squareroot-sign...
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2012It 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, 2012It 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.
Well that would be you again. Clocks are clocks but atomic clocks USE photons so you don't know what you are talking about.
Yes. And experiments back that up. What is your problem with this?>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2012The 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, 2012Pissoff 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, 2012You 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
2.5 / 5 (15) Apr 21, 2012Just 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, 2012CardacianNeverid
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 21, 2012No moreso than you, tard boy.
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, 2012Proper time is frame invariant.
Read an introductory book and you will learn.
THE_ANTIPHILO
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2012Raygunner
not rated yet Apr 21, 2012kvantti
5 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2012Disregarding 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, 2012To 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, 2012And 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, 2012Please 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.
I totally agree. And that actually fits a multiple universe model. At least my version of it.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2012Was 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, 2012If 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
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, 2012Tachyon8491
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 22, 2012Terriva
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2012Tachyon8491
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 22, 2012Tachyon8491
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2012Tachyon8491
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 22, 2012kvantti
5 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2012You 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, 2012Terriva
1 / 5 (8) Apr 22, 2012Bonus 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, 2012andymurphych
1 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2012My two "unscientific" cents: Time is measurement, nothing real that can be pointed at, it's an activity!
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (9) Apr 23, 2012Massive 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, 2012All 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, 2012Please 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, 2012Mr. 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, 2012Nonsense. You inferred that.
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 for not noticing what is abhorrent in the nonsense YOU and Noumenon use in place of philosophy.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2012Now 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.
No. Learn about manners. They are not philosophy. They evolved.
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, 2012Or multi worlds or a wave model.
Which means nothing good for Bohm as Einstein was wrong on QM after his initial work on it.
Magic. That is what that is.
Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2012Which 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, 2012I 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.
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, 2012And 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.
If you happy putting my mouth you can expect my to point it out when you do that. >>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2012No, 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 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, 2012OK 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, 2012Both 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, 2012http://www.amazon...12694554
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2012http://www.physic...word.pdf
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Apr 23, 2012Both 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, 2012That 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, 2012The 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, 2012http://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, 2012Fleetfoot
4.4 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2012That'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, 2012Feynman
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"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, 2012The 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, 2012TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2012Terriva
1.6 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2012TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2012-And its 'bears to honey' and 'flies to shit' just so you know.
Terriva
1 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2012Regarding 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, 2012kvantti
not rated yet Apr 24, 2012kvantti
5 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2012You 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, 2012If 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, 2012casualjoe
1 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2012Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2012It doesn't work as anything more than an approximation, that's why it was superseded by GR.
Tachyon8491
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2012And 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, 2012Neutrinos are relativistic, dark matter is not.
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.
Not even that, he simply replaces t with "t dt". There is no value is his nonsense whatsoever.
Terriva
1 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2012Does the whole pile of math of general relativity target this question at least a bit? I would say it doesn't.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, 2012There 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, 2012Creating -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.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, 2012The "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, 2012Russkiycremepuff
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 24, 2012Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2012Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2012Space/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, 2012Nonsense, gravity is not even a force in GR.
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, 2012That's a fair way of putting it.
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, 2012In your case, certainly.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2012Mathematics 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, 2012Terriva
1 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2012Well, 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, 2012The 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, 2012No, 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, 2012Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012I 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, 2012Origin
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2012Such 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, 2012I realise that but it isn't a matter of opinion, the nature of time can be discerned from experiments.
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, 2012Actually, most people prefer to think only the present exists but popularity is no indicator of veracity.
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, 2012kvantti
5 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2012Untrue. 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, 2012kvantti
not rated yet Apr 25, 2012What? 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, 2012kvantti
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2012Nope. 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."
...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, 2012No, like any other density, the mass-energy density is the energy (including mass) divided by the volume.
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, 2012The 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, 2012AmritSorli
1 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2012so how time could be spatial distance ?
time is a mathematical sequence (order)of motion in space
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012In 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, 2012Of course not, if it was, it wouldn't change the units! It is the exact opposite of "dimensionless".
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2012It is not spatial, that is why it has the opposite sign to the spatial terms in the formula for the invariant interval.
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, 2012The 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, 2012Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2012Try 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, 2012The 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, 2012If 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, 2012Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2012No, 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, 2012Origin=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, 2012To 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, 2012Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2012Russkiycremepuff
2.2 / 5 (10) Apr 26, 2012Russkiycremepuff
2.2 / 5 (10) Apr 26, 2012on 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, 2012While 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, 2012Terriva
1 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2012For background reading: You cant convince an idiot of anything.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2012"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, 2012Your 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, 2012It'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, 2012TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2012TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2012http://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, 2012TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2012"...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, 2012You 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, 2012Go 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, 2012Hey 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, 2012As 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, 2012Russkiycremepuff
2.2 / 5 (10) Apr 26, 2012Russkiycremepuff
2.2 / 5 (10) Apr 26, 2012It is a cornerstone from which knowledge is supported and gives rise to the potentiality of all knowledge.
Russkiycremepuff
2.2 / 5 (10) Apr 26, 2012Kant 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, 2012My 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, 2012Neither 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, 2012AmritSorli
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2012In 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, 2012In 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, 2012This 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
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, 2012Good 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, 2012Fleetfoot
not rated yet Apr 27, 2012You 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, 2012Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2012The 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.
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, 2012I agree entirely, your character is of no concern and neither is mine, however what you know or not is very relevant.
"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, 2012You have arguments - or you haven't. That's all.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, 2012For 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, 2012There is ample evidence against it but first you need to understand what the term "redshift" means.
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, 2012The 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, 2012Most of what you are saying about philosophy is rubbish. And I have only read a little of what you wrote.No, It cannot be a science as it does not exist.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....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"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 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, 2012Now 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.
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, 2012Tachyon8491
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 27, 2012Consequently: 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, 2012If "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, 2012This 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, 2012TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2012Re 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, 2012What 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.
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, 2012Which 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, 2012Again, 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- 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, 2012You 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, 2012Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2012Obituary 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, 2012The 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, 2012of 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"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, 2012And 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, 2012a 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, 2012And 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, 2012AmritSorli
1 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2012Fleetfoot
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2012Very 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, 2012What is called the "thermodynamic arrow of time" prevents that, a cup falling and smashing is clearly different when watched in reverse.
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, 2012However, 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, 2012There 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, 2012Russkiycremepuff
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2012No, 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, 2012Fleetfoot
not rated yet Apr 29, 2012I 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, 2012AmritSorli
1 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2012Ok 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, 2012http://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, 2012In 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.Amrit, I'm reading you whole years and you're repeating the very same atemporal stuff like machine.
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2012The 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, 2012Terriva
1 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2012Fleetfoot
not rated yet Apr 29, 2012You can find more recent references to the theory here:
http://en.wikiped..._gravity
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, 2012Yes, 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, 2012Matter 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, 2012Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2012I 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, 2012Philosophy 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, 2012According 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{{ 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, 20125. 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, 2012Many 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.
AmritSorli
1.4 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2012TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2012Philos 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, 2012You 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, 2012And 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.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"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, 2012Sir, 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, 2012But 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, 2012Time, 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, 2012The evidence ruling it out is well publicised, for example here:
http://www.astro....dlit.htm
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) May 01, 2012Yes. 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, 2012Correct, that's why I said "similar to".
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, 2012BoxPopuli
3.7 / 5 (6) May 01, 2012Amrit, 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, 2012Terriva
1 / 5 (5) May 01, 2012Gawad
5 / 5 (5) May 01, 2012Euh, 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, 2012Sir:
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, 2012dilation 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, 2012Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 02, 2012Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 02, 2012It 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, 2012I 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, 2012Two 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, 2012Fleetfoot
not rated yet May 02, 2012Indeed but we all make mistakes. Gravitational time dilation is determined by the gravitational potential, not the force.
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, 2012This 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"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, 2012Part of that may be because English is clearly a second language for you. Reading the book I recommended will he