Jump to content

Maartenn100

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    124
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Maartenn100 last won the day on April 30 2019

Maartenn100 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Maartenn100

  • Rank
    Baryon

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    philosophy about space and time

Recent Profile Visitors

1350 profile views
  1. What's wrong with the following reasoning? - The past is gone (doesn't exist (anymore)) - The future isn't there yet (doesn't exist) - The actual moment is all there is. - The actual moment can't have a duration, because in that case it could be divided into a past, present and a future. So, the duration of the actual moment must be 0 sec. Conclusion: time is an illusion.
  2. But, the past is gone and the future isn't there yet, in our experience. Only the actual moment exists and is real. We observe the past, but we are in the present moment, and that's all there is to our conscious experience. Even when you remember something from the past, it pops up in the present. Because the present is all there is (to minds).
  3. In philosophy of time, you have eternalism and presentism. Eternalism says: there is the block universe where past, present and future co-exist as one block universe. Presentism says: there is only the present moment. My idea is: to a conscious mind, there is only the present (presentism), but a universe without minds is a block universe (eternalism). So presentism and eternalism are both true, depending on the perspective you are using. The perspective of a mind/observer = presentism. The perspective of a universe without minds (even animals, although they could experience time differently) is a 4D-block universe.
  4. We only experience a 3D-universe, in the actual moment. We only experience the present. (philosophical presentism) (we observe the past, but we observe it in our present moment). The present moment is all there exist for an observer. But without observers, the universe in itself, is eternalism. The block universe where past, present and maybe future co-exist. This video explains the difference between our human experience and spacetime very well: The philosophical aspect would be 'consciousness' or 'mind' that's added to physics. Our experience of a 3D space in the actual moment, is actually an experience of a 3-dimensional universe, while there are 4 dimensions. The interaction of a mind with 4D-spacetime let us only experience the 3D-universe in the present moment. Thank you for this information! Does the moon exist when there are no observers? Without any observer, the moon and everything the universe exist as it was in the past, as it is in the present and as it will be in the future simultaniously. An existing mind will experience the motions of the moon moment by moment. Only in the present. While 'outthere', in spacetime, in the block universe, all the motions of the moon co-exist in past, present and maybe future. That's how I see it. The double slit experiment f.e.: the shooting of the electron, the electron going through the slit and finally touching the photoscreen, all these events exist simultaniously when there are no observers. The observer will fix the particle in a moment in time, while in reality, in 4D-spacetime, the whole experiment, from beginning to end, co-exists through time simultaniously.
  5. Why do we only experience a 3D-world, while it's actually a 4D spacetime universe (Einstein) where past, present and maybe future co-exist simultaniously as some block universe? Due to the interaction of consciousness with this 4D-spacetime- block universe, we only experience a 3D world.
  6. Ask yourself these questions: What is a straight line for observers in different, curved spacetime environements? Is it the same straight line for all observers? Or do we disagree about our ruler? For every observer, his particular idea of straight uncurved ruler (a straight line) is an individual idea of space, like he has an individual clock (time rate passage). Whatever an observer will see as a straight line, in his own referenceframe, will be curved somewhere else by heavier masses. Whatever an observer will see as a straight line in his own reference frame, will be seen as an expanded space somewhere else in less heavy environements (in intergalactic space f.e.). We have individual clocks, but we also have individual rulers. We all have a particular idea of straight uncurved and unexpanded spaces in our own reference frames.
  7. So, you see the universe through the lens of your clock. An observer near a black hole, who will think that time on Earth is stretched (according to his idea of time), will observe Earth differently then we (here on Earth) do. We have the same clock then Earth has. (same time rate passage, same timeflow). So Earth stands still, relative to us here on Earth. Because we have the same clocks and rulers. (please reply with the analogy of observers and their clocks and rulers)
  8. Please, explain this in terms of observers and their clocks and rulers. An observer near a black hole will have a different idea of 'the stretch of time' here on Earth. To the observer near the black hole, time is not curved here on Earth, but stretched. (according to his idea of time near that black hole). To the observer here above Earth, time is contracted on Earth. (very small, but contracted). Both observers (near the black hole and an observer above Earth) have their own clock and their own ruler to determine the 'curvature of spacetime' on Earth. They have their own idea of standard timeflow and their own idea of an uncurved ruler. So they will have a particular idea of how much time is contracted here on Earth. They use their own stick to determine that. Their own reference frame. It depends on their standard for normal time flow (and their idea of a straight uncurved line). To an observer near a black hole, he has a different idea of a normal timeflow then an observer above Earth. (please try to explain this in terms of observers and their clocks and rulers). So, my point is: wherever you are as an observer, you use your standard idea of normal timeflow to determine the 'stetch or contraction' of time elsewhere by relatively more/less heavy massive bodies and relatively higher or lower speeds. The amount of 'curvature of spacetime' (the stretch or contraction of time f.e.) depends on your standard clock and standard ruler, wherever you are. So, whatever you observe outthere about space and time, has something to do with your own clock and ruler, locally.
  9. I should say that the influence of curvature by masses on a clock is not knowable. Because there is no zeropoint to compare too. I mean, there is no zero gravity environment where we can put a clock or a ruler and compare it with our clock and ruler in our gravitational field. There is no objective standard for time and space. We can only compare the influence of Earth's gravity on our clock with another clock in another gravitational field. Small is therefore relative. Depending on with wich clock you compare it too. All the environements are curved somehow. So, to us, observers, there is no curvature on our clocks. We have a normal idea of time. To the observers in a spaceship above Earth, their idea of time is slowed down here on Earth. There is a small curvature. To an observer on Jupiter, time is stretched here on Earth.
  10. But small is relative, isn't it? The influence of the black hole in the centre of our galaxy and the whole system we are part of (the galaxy) and the cluster of galaxies on our clock and ruler is very big, isn't it? The influence of a system of clusters of galaxies on our clock and ruler is big, isn't it? But to us, our clock ticks 'normal'. We use our clock and ruler as a standard, to state: that galaxy we observe over there has this space-timeproperties. It totally depends on our ruler and our clock. On our telescope in our field. In my theory there is no zero gravity condition thinkable. There is only curvature. There can be not no curvature of space and time. And the amount of curvature always depends on the observer's standard for time and curvature of space.
  11. I have a hypothesis which I want to share here. It may be wrong, but I want to discuss about it. What we see through our telescopes has also something to do with from which gravitational field we observe the celestial bodies. Our observation of dark matter in an observed galaxy f.e. is the result of the space-time curvature of our gravity field from where we observe the other field, and the curvature of the galaxy we observe. It's a result of clocks and rulers. Of the influence of the field of gravity of the observers on their telescopes. Because we consider our clock and our local ruler to be non-curved and always the standard for slower running time or curved spaces elsewhere in a relatively stronger (or relatively weaker field) of gravity somewhere else. The movements of the celestial bodies performed are therefore, in my opinion, partly relative. From another gravitational field, we see an object revolving around its star in a certain way which will be different for an observer from another field of gravity. That is the prediction from my hypothesis. From a different gravitational field, we will see stars moving differently in their galaxies. The dark matter that is assumed, because observed stars rotate too fast in their galaxy, is therefore, in my opinion, the result of the influence of our gravitational field on our clock and ruler, on our telescope. On our observations. So what we call "dark matter" is, in my opinion, a kind of relativistic space-time perception. Depending on where we make the observation from. The result of the observer's gravitational field and the observed field provides the relativistic space-time curvature perception of the field concerned. Because an observer will always use his clock and ruler as the standard for normal ticking time and uncurved rulers. Therefore, the amount of observed dark matter will differ for different observers in different gravitational fields.
  12. Thank you for this information. For which purposes, if I may ask? What makes the comoving frame more useful for some purposes then other frames of reference?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.