Jump to content

An observer's local clock and ruler determine the observation of curved and expanded spaces somewhere else


Recommended Posts

These are my 'laws of observation':

 

If you observe 'expanding space' somewhere far from you (receiding galaxies obeying Hubble's Law), it has something to do with your local clock and ruler here on Earth. 
It has something to do with the difference between your clock and the hypothetical clocks in intergalactic space over there.
 
If you observe curved space far away from you, due to gravity, the amount of observed curvature somewhere else has something to do with your local idea of a straight line. Determined by your local clock in your own curved spacetime environement.
 
Wherever you are in curved spacetime, your local idea of a straight line and your local clock determines what you will observe somewhere else about space being curved or expanded.
 
Every observer has his/her own ruler or clock. He or she or it is the measure for space and time somewhere else (through a telescope far from the observer's location).
His clock and his ruler are the standards for space-observations somewhere else.
 
 
ps: I do not believe in the Big Bang theory. I think that 'the observed expansion of space' has something to do with the difference between our local clock and the hypothetical clocks over there in space, far away from us. Whatever we observe to be going on with space elsewhere (curvature or expanding space), it has something to do with our local idea of time and the clocks over there. Because time and space are related.
 
Maarten Vergucht
Philosopher of time and space.
Edited by Maartenn100
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 185
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

! Moderator Note NO! You have too many misconceptions you need to address before advancing more "ideas". And this thread is 8 pages of unsupported soapboxing, so it ends now.

You have still only answered half the question. How does this differ from "expansion of the universe"? (Clue: it doesn't. That is what "expansion of the universe" means.) You cannot use an

This may be a difficult concept but, not every thought you have is gold, that's why we have ears (or in this context ' a screen'). 

What has this to do with philosophy?

It looks like physics. But I am afraid it only looks like it.

So I wonder where you earned the title 'Philosopher of time and space'. One thing is sure: not from some university...

Sorry, Maarten, maar dit heeft niets met natuurkunde of filosofie te maken.

It is pure, scientifically unsupported speculation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you: it's speculation and it is not philosophy. But, I post it here because it has the term 'observer' in it. I also believe that 'minds' are crucial for our obsrevation of space. That's more philosophical (consciousness) then scientific.

And I'm not an academic philosopher, but that doesn't mean I  may not call myself a philosopher. It's not a protected title.

Edited by Maartenn100
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

ps: I do not believe in the Big Bang theory.

Do you have any evidence that contradicts it? Otherwise, it doesn't really matter what your (religious) beliefs are.

51 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

I think that 'the observed expansion of space' has something to do with the difference between our local clock and the hypothetical clocks over there in space, far away from us.

As you so astutely note (1) time and space are inextricably linked. This means that it cannot be just due to a difference in clocks, there must be a related difference in space. The observed expansion is due to a difference in scale factor between the source and us. This is normally described in terms of a scaling of spatial dimensions. It is possible to describe exactly the same thing in terms of changes in time measured in the two frames of reference. This is not normally done because it is less intuitive (for most people) and results in extra complications, such as a changing speed of light.

Perhaps you don't disagree with the Big Bang but with the coordinate choice used when describing it?

 

(1) Which implies you accept relativity, but somehow deny it can be applied to the universe as a whole. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange, thanks for replying. 

 

I do believe the following: 

Because of the fact that we experience time everywhere the same (we do not experience a slower rate of time passage in a field of gravity), we will observe certain space distortions somewhere else. That's a hypothesis.

 

We do not experience nor observe the curvature of space (and time) locally. To us, time flows everywhere the same. In our own referenceframe the laws of Newton work just fine. Therefore, to us, we will observe the spacedistortions (expansion of space) always somewhere else. Because we will have a local idea of straight ruler too. 

The philosophical aspect here is that minds or observers are crucial here. The experience of time or the experience of an uncurved local ruler, determines the observation of distorted spaces elsewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

And I'm not an academic philosopher, but that doesn't mean I  may not call myself a philosopher. It's not a protected title.

What sort of reaction would you get if you tried to get a job as a mechanic because you can change a tire?

12 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

We do not experience nor observe the curvature of space (and time) locally. To us, time flows everywhere the same. In our own referenceframe the laws of Newton work just fine. Therefore, to us, we will observe the spacedistortions (expansion of space) always somewhere else. Because we will have a local idea of straight ruler too. 

How well do you think that works out with GPS?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

Note 'Observer' has different meanings in physics.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(physics)

Doesn't require a mind. That's more a Pop-sci fiction.

Therefore it's philosophy and not physics. Minds do exist in reality. (not in physics).

Minds howerver are crucial for our observation of space; Because minds do experience 'the actual moment' everywhere the same, even when time is dilated. Therefore, they will observe something going on with space somewhere else, while actually there is something going on with time. 

12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What sort of reaction would you get if you tried to get a job as a mechanic because you can change a tire?

You don't know how much I know about philosophy, do you? 

Edited by Maartenn100
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Maartenn100 said:

Therefore it's philosophy and not physics. Minds do exist in reality. (not in physics).

Minds howerver are crucial for our observation of space; Because minds do experience 'the actual moment' everywhere the same, even when time is dilated. Therefore, they will observe something going on with space, while actually there is something going on with time. 

That's why minds aren't used as an observer in physics, and why philosophy actively tries to distance itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact is, minds exist in reality. It's above all the only thing you can be certain about. I experience, therefore I am.  (cfr: cogito ergo sum)

We have to wait for a new generation of physicists who will recognize that the mind is lawfully connected to its obsrvations of time and space. 

 

Edited by Maartenn100
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Because of the fact that we experience time everywhere the same (we do not experience a slower rate of time passage in a field of gravity), we will observe certain space distortions somewhere else. That's a hypothesis.

Well, it is part of general relativity. And confirmed by experiment. (We observe distortions of both space and time. Because they are inseparable.)

28 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

We do not experience nor observe the curvature of space (and time) locally.

We do. We call it "gravity". 

We can also measure smaller effects, such as gravitational time dilation, locally. 

28 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

The philosophical aspect here is that minds or observers are crucial here.

Except the measurements would be the same if they were made by robots.

But, yes, you are right that Relativity is a theory of comparing measurements made by different observers. What those measurements "mean" is a matter of philosophy (and irrelevant to the correctness of the theory).

3 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Fact is, minds exist in reality.

You don't know that. It is a belief. (But you are revealing how much you know about philosophy ... :) )

Edited by Strange
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Fact is, minds exist in reality. It's above all the only thing you can be certain about. I experience, therefore I am.  (cfr: cogito ergo sum)

1

It's ironic, you choose Descartes as supportive evidence...

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What sort of reaction would you get if you tried to get a job as a mechanic because you can change a tire?

How well do you think that works out with GPS?

To the clock of the Satelite time flows normal and time is slow here on Earth. a straight line to an observer in space is curved here on Earth.

To us here on Earth and our experience of time, time flows normal here, but time is fast where the satelite is. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Maartenn100 said:

To the clock of the Satelite time flows normal and time is slow here on Earth. a straight line to an observer in space is curved here on Earth.

To us here on Earth and our experience of time, time flows normal here, but time is fast where the satelite is. 

Do you think you could tell the difference?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do I think that 'expanding space' has nothing to do with 'an expansion of the universe'.

Because whenever you observe that something is going on with space (curvature, expansion), your first mental thought ought to be: there must be something going on with time too.

Because space and time are like twins. Spacetime.

 

Edited by Maartenn100
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

To the clock of the Satelite time flows normal and time is slow here on Earth. a straight line to an observer in space is curved here on Earth.

To us here on Earth and our experience of time, time flows normal here, but time is fast where the satelite is. 

So you accept General Relativity, and the local observation of the curvature of time and space.

You just reject one particular solution to the Einstein Field Equations, is that right? (This one: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-most-important-equation-in-the-universe-9153947e399)

But that is mathematics. And as a "philosopher" you must know that the solution to an equation can be proved to be correct. 

This puts you in a difficult position. You accept the mathematics of GR (e.g. time dilation in GPS). But you reject one solution of the equations (and the evidence that shows the solution applies to the universe).

Which suggests you are saying that mathematics is fundamentally broken.

Or (more plausibly) you are letting your quasi-religious beliefs blind you to the inevitable scientific and philosophical conclusion that Einstein's Field Equations do, in fact, provide a valid description of the universe.

 

2 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Because whenever you observe that something is going on with space (curvature, expansion), your first mental thought ought to be: there must be something going on with time too.

Because space and time are like twins.

Exactly. We see time dilation in the distant universe. Or were you unaware of that? Is your disagreement based on ignorance as well as religious beliefs?

2 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Why do I think that 'expanding space' has nothing to do with 'an expansion of the universe'.

Do you think that "expanding space" and "expansion of the universe" are different things?

Edited by Strange
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

Do you think that "expanding space" and "expansion of the universe" are different things?

In my opinion there is no 'expansion of the universe in itself'. There is only the observarion of expanding space. We tend to forget that not only time is relative, but space is also relative. Wherever we see something strange going on with space, it has something to do with the relativity of space. And with the relativity of time. Because space and  time are interconnected  (spacetime).

Edited by Maartenn100
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

In my opinion there is no 'expansion of the universe in itself'. There is only the observarion of expanding space.

That is what "expansion of the universe" means. 

What do you mean by "expansion of the universe" that makes it different from the expansion of space?

21 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

We tend to forget that not only time is relative, but space is also relative.

Who is this "we"?

Are you referring to yourself? Did you somehow "forget" (or never learn) this?

22 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Wherever we see something strange going on with space, it has something to do with the relativity of space. And with the relativity of time. Because space and  time are interconnected  (spacetime).

You only know this because of the same theory that tells us that space is expanding.

You argument seems to be tat because GR is right it must be wrong. Did your philosophy course omit basic logic? You should ask for your money back.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

 

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is what "expansion of the universe" means. 

What do you mean by "expansion of the universe" that makes it different from the expansion of space?

 

The observation of the redshift of the emitted light of galaxies far away from us, obbeying Hubble's Law can be theoretisised as a relativistic observation of space (space-expansion), but has nothing  to do with the expansion of the universe  as a whole. The universe in itself does not expand. We observe relativistic space-expansions. That's a crucial difference. Observers from another location do not observer this expansion where we observer the expansion. That's the relativity of space.

 

Edited by Maartenn100
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

The observation of the redshift of the emitted light of galaxies far away from us, obbeying Hubble's Law can be theoretisised as a relativistic observation of space (space-expansion), but has nothing  to do with the expansion of the universe  as a whole. The universe in itself does not expand. We observe relativistic space-expansions. That's a crucial difference.

WHAT is the difference?

What do you mean by "expansion of the universe" that makes it different from the "expansion of space"?

In standard cosmology these two phrases refer to exactly the same thing. So how are you using them differently?

So, how do YOU define "space expansion"?

And how do YOU define "expansion of the universe"?

The trouble is you are saying that you accept the Big Bang model using one form or words but reject exactly the same thing when described with a different set of words. Do you see how little sense this makes?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Strange said:

WHAT is the difference?

What do you mean by "expansion of the universe" that makes it different from the "expansion of space"?

In standard cosmology these two phrases refer to exactly the same thing. So how are you using them differently?

So, how do YOU define "space expansion"?

And how do YOU define "expansion of the universe"?

The trouble is you are saying that you accept the Big Bang model using one form or words but reject exactly the same thing when described with a different set of words. Do you see how little sense this makes?

Imagine the following. The observers in a fast spaceship (near the speed of light relative to Earth) observe a lengthcontraction of space in front of them in the direction of motion. Do they interprete this spaceshrink as 'a shrink of the universe'? No, they know that they are going at high speeds relative to Earth, so they know that the observed spaceshrink in front of them is a relativistic observation of space.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maartenn100 said:

You don't know how much I know about philosophy, do you?

5 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Imagine the following. The observers in a fast spaceship (near the speed of light relative to Earth) observe a lengthcontraction of space in front of them in the direction of motion. Do they interprete this spaceshrink as 'a shrink of the universe'? No, they know that they are going at high speeds relative to Earth, so they know that the observed spaceshrink in front of them is a relativistic observation of space.

Nope, but I'm getting an idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the universe in itself cannot be observed. There are only relativistic observations of space and time possible. No objective universe as a whole, observer-independent (=reference frame independent). That'a only a deduced manifold, pure mathematical. More real then our relativistic observations of space and time, but not directly observable, only deducable. Pure Platonic entity. And that's where the philosophy is involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Imagine the following. The observers in a fast spaceship (near the speed of light relative to Earth) observe a lengthcontraction of space in front of them in the direction of motion. Do they interprete this spaceshrink as 'a shrink of the universe'? No, they know that they are going at high speeds relative to Earth, so they know that the observed spaceshrink in front of them is a relativistic observation of space.

You haven't answered the question:

What, exactly, do you mean by "space expansion"? And what exactly do you mean by "expansion of the universe"? And how are these different?

I guess you can't answer because ... what? You don't know what you are talking about? 

 

1 minute ago, Maartenn100 said:

There are only relativistic observations of space and time possible. No objective universe as a whole, observer-independent (=reference frame independent).

Yep. This is standard physics. You seem to be endlessly parroting standard concepts (as if you thought of them) and then denying the conclusions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.