Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

The subtile but crucial difference between standard physics and my theory is that minds are crucial.

Minds and spacetime result in the experience of the events moment by moment. While in spacetime (reality in itself, without observers) are all evetns existing together from past, present and future in this manifold called spacetime (Einstein, Minkowski).

Minds or consciousness are crucial to have an observable world. 

My idea: the interaction of minds with this mathematical body spacetime results in the experience of an observable world where the events come moment by moment to an observing mind.

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'). 

6 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

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.

And that's why you're as wrong as Sherlock...

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

The subtile but crucial difference between standard physics and my theory is that minds are crucial.

How does this change the mathematics or the predicted results? In other words, what observations could be used to test your idea and distinguish it from standard cosmology?

And why won't you answer this: 

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

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

How does this change the mathematics or the predicted results? In other words, what observations could be used to test your idea and distinguish it from standard cosmology?

And why won't you answer this: 

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 will answer your second question first: it's the observed redshift of the emitted light by receiding galaxies, caused by expanding space.

It doesn't change the mathematical or the predicted results. It only includes minds as being crucial in physics. The natural sciences need to include consciousness in their model of the world, or their model is incomplete; 

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

I will answer your second question first: it's the observed redshift of the emitted light by receiding galaxies, caused by expanding space.

And how is this different from "expansion of the universe"? (Because everyone else on the planet thinks they mean the same thing.)

2 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

It doesn't change the mathematical or the predicted results. It only includes minds as being crucial in physics.

You have replaced GR with GR + invisible pink unicorns.

Apparently you have never heard of Occam's razor?

3 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

The exact sciencec need to include consciousness in their model of the world, or their model is incomplete; 

How can your version be more complete if it doesn't make any difference?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Why space has to differ? Why it is not the path (distance) differ because an outside force (gravity), in space?

I don't have all the answers. I can't deliver a nobel prize on this forum:-). Your expectations are too high here.

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

And how is this different from "expansion of the universe"? (Because everyone else on the planet thinks they mean the same thing.)

You have replaced GR with GR + invisible pink unicorns.

Apparently you have never heard of Occam's razor?

How can your version be more complete if it doesn't make any difference?

 

The crucial difference is an unmeasurable and invisible constant in the observable universe: the mind. 

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

Why space has to differ?

Because the theory deals with the geometry of space-time. You can't alter one without changing the other.

Quote

Why it is not the path (distance) differ because an outside force (gravity), in space?

Gravity IS the curvature of space-time. It is not an outside force.

1 minute ago, Maartenn100 said:

I don't have all the answers.

So far, you don't have any answers.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot deliver a breakthrough in science on this forum, that's right. That's why the moderator put this topic here.  I don't have to make a breakthrough in science, although you expect this form me. ; It's just a free discussion.

 

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

The crucial difference is:the mind. 

But you just said it doesn't make any difference.

So what difference does it make?

How does "mind" make a difference between "expansion of the universe" (i.e. the metric expansion of space) and "space expansion" (i.e. the metric expansion of space)? They are exactly the same thing

This is like saying that if you measure a how fast your car goes, you know "how many kilometres it travels in one hour" but you don't know "the speed it is going". They are exactly the same thing.

 

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

And Strange answered that what I posted here is standard physics. Hmmm you are contradicting each other. It cannot be both right.

2

Well, you did post this topic in philosophy, so I can't resist... No shit Sherlock

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

I cannot deliver a breakthrough in science on this forum, that's right. That's why the moderator put this topic here.  I don't have to make a breakthrough in science, although you expect this form me. ; It's just a free discussion.

No one is expecting you to make a breakthrough.

Making sense would be enough.

You say that "expansion of space" is different from "expansion of the universe" even though these mean exactly the same thing.

You are unable to define what you mean by either of these phrases.

You are unable to define what is different between them.

You are unable to show that GR is wrong. In fact, you seem to base your entire argument on it being correct.

And yet you claim it is wrong. This is totally irrational.

 

Just now, Maartenn100 said:

The problem with physics is that scientists will not except a crucial virtual constant like 'consciousness' or 'a mind' as being crucial for an observable universe.

And what difference would it make if they did?

You haven't yet shown that anything is wrong with current physics.

21 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

It cannot be both right.

And yet this is what you are claiming about modern cosmology: it is correct if describe with one word and wrong if described by a different word. And yet it is the same theory. It can be both right and wrong.

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

The crucial difference is an unmeasurable and invisible constant in the observable universe: the mind

Mind?

Some level of Information maybe (consciousness for some).

That it would be absolutely unmeasurable, I would disagree. It depends. We can measure anything digitally...

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

No one is expecting you to make a breakthrough.

Making sense would be enough.

You say that "expansion of space" is different from "expansion of the universe" even though these mean exactly the same thing.

You are unable to define what you mean by either of these phrases.

You are unable to define what is different between them.

You are unable to show that GR is wrong. In fact, you seem to base your entire argument on it being correct.

And yet you claim it is wrong. This is totally irrational.

 

And what difference would it make if they did?

You haven't yet shown that anything is wrong with current physics.

you seem to ignore what I already answered here twice. Expanding space is the interpretation of the redshift of the emitted light of galaxies far away from us following Hubble's Law. There is your definition;

Again: the crucial difference, which cannot be accepted by the natural science is ... you. A conscious mind. 

The crucial difference with the current theories is that I claim that you need a concious mind to have an observable universe.

Before the first mind came into being, there was no observable universe. That's my claim. You think that what I'm saying is not different from what current science is saying. You don't seem to notice that minds are not part of physics.

Edited by Maartenn100
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maartenn100 said:

you seem to ignore what I already answered here twice. Expanding space is the interpretation of the redshift of the emitted light of galaxies far away from us. There is your definition;

That is only half the answer.

How do you define "expansion of the universe"?

1 minute ago, Maartenn100 said:

Again: the crucial difference, which cannot be accepted by the natural science is ... you. A conscious mind. 

What actual difference will this make? 

How will this change the results of cosmology? How will it change the mathematics of GR? How will it change the observed red-shift?

In short: what difference will it make?

2 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

You think that what I'm saying is not different from what current science is saying.

No. I am asking you to explain exactly how it is different.

Quote

You don't seem to notice that minds are not part of physics.

Minds are obviously part of physics because it is minds that do physics. 

But you haven't explained how this would make any difference to science, so it seems a completely pointless statement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference with my theory is that I think that there is no 'age of the universe'. Age is relative. (time is relative).

A fat guy (more mass) will have a different idea about the socalled age of the universe then a tin guy. (less mass). They both disagree about the age of the universe since the socalled big bang because of their different mass. The difference in this case is neglectible but I use this example to show you that this whole idea of 'the age of the universe' doesn't work anymore when you think about the relativity of time (of age). So the universe in itself, without observers, has no defined timescale in my theory. it's a Platonic entity, pure mathematical, more absolute (non relative) then our relative obsrevations of time and space, but it has no defined timescale in itself (according to who's clock?). It's a theoretised manifold, mathematically existing, not observable, only deducable; 

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

It doesn't change the mathematical or the predicted results. It only includes minds as being crucial in physics. The natural sciences need to include consciousness in their model of the world, or their model is incomplete; 

That actually runs contrary to what physics says. How we perceive results is a bias to be removed from any data that we collect. One of the reasons we use instruments to collect data, instead of using human perception, and why we rely on mathematical models, so that the comparison is quantitative, rather than qualitative.

IOW, the universe expansion has absolutely no reliance on whether we noticed it or not (and we've only noticed this for the past century, give or take)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maartenn100 said:

The difference with my theory is that I think that spacetime in itself is pure mathematical. Cannot be observed and it has not timescale.

A lot of people would agree with this. space-time is a mathematical model. Whether it matches "reality" is a philosophical question that cannot be answered. (As you would know if you knew anything about philosophy.)

However, we can make observations and compare them with the mathematics of space-time. Are you saying that this observations do not agree with the model?

3 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

The geometry of spacetime with 4 dimensons, time inculded, has not timeproperties. That's also my claim.

That doesn't make much sense. (Like most of your posts.) One of the dimensions of space-time is time. So how can it not have "time properties" (whatever that means)?

4 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

A fat guy (more mass) will have a different idea about the socalled age of the universe then a tin guy. (less mass). They both disagree about the age of the universe because of there different mass.

Wow. I bet no one ever thought of that before. (That is sarcasm, by the way.)

5 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

I use this example to show you that this whole idea of 'the age of the universe' doesn't work anymore when you think about the relativity of time (of age).

I think what you mean is: "you can't understand the age of the universe if you don't understand the model."

If I can attempt to summarise your incoherent ramblings:

1. You accept GR and the existing cosmological model.

2. For reasons you are unable to explain, you dislike the word "universe" when referring to expansion but (for equally incomprehensible reasons) you don't mind the word "space".

3. you claim that "the mind" must be included in physical theories but are unable to say why or what difference it will make.

4. You don't know how the age of the universe is calculated but you think it must be wrong.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

there is only one reasonable way how to calculate the age of the universe: with a clock. And we know that time is relative. So, no definable age of the universe since the socalled big bang possible. 

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

A lot of people would agree with this. space-time is a mathematical model. Whether it matches "reality" is a philosophical question that cannot be answered. (As you would know if you knew anything about philosophy.)

However, we can make observations and compare them with the mathematics of space-time. Are you saying that this observations do not agree with the model?

No, it's not because it's mathematical, that it's not real. It's even more real then our relativistic observations of space. and time.

 

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

That doesn't make much sense. (Like most of your posts.) One of the dimensions of space-time is time. So how can it not have "time properties" (whatever that means)?

According to who's clock?  What's the universal reference frame? There is no universal referenceframe (theories of relativity). So no defined timescale possible of the universe as a whole.

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

Wow. I bet no one ever thought of that before. (That is sarcasm, by the way.)

Ok.

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

I think what you mean is: "you can't understand the age of the universe if you don't understand the model."

No, what I mean is: only a clock can measure time. And time is relative, so no defined age of the universe in itself.

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

If I can attempt to summarise your incoherent ramblings:

Please give an exaple of the incoherence. 

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

1. You accept GR and the existing cosmological model.

Yes.

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

2. For reasons you are unable to explain, you dislike the word "universe" when referring to expansion but (for equally incomprehensible reasons) you don't mind the word "space".

The universe in itself is only mathematical in my idea, and a mathematical model cannot expand. it has no spatial and temporal properties.

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

3. you claim that "the mind" must be included in physical theories but are unable to say why or what difference it will make.

The difference will be that the mind will be included. That's a hugh difference.

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

4. You don't know how the age of the universe is calculated but you think it must be wrong.

The only reasonable way to measure time is with a (atomic) clock. And the clocks will not give us a defined age, because time is relative.

 

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

 

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

there is only one reasonable way how to calculate the age of the universe: with a clock. And we know that time is relative. So, no definable age of the universe since the socalled big bang possible. 

Are you saying it is impossible to measure time, even with a clock? All of physics appears show that is wrong.

So, just perhaps, if one chooses a particular clock, one can use it to measure time in a consistent and well defined way.

10 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

No, it's not because it's mathematical, that it's not real. It's even more real then our relativistic observations of space. and time.

What? I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

11 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

According to who's clock?  What's the universal reference frame? There is no universal referenceframe (theories of relativity). So no defined timescale possible of the universe as a whole.

These demonstrations of ignorance (and lack of logical thinking) are rather embarrassing.

There doesn't need to be a universal reference frame (there isn't). You just need to define whose clock you are using when you calculate the age.

13 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

No, what I mean is: only a clock can measure time. And time is relative, so no defined age of the universe in itself.

Time is not relative for a single clock. A clock always experiences the same time.  

You are trying to use concepts from a theory you barely understand to try and discredit that same theory. Guess what: that isn't going to work.

16 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Please give an exaple of the incoherence. 

See every single post of your in this thread. They are full of wilful ignorance, self-contradictory statements and arguments from incredulity.

18 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

The universe in itself is only mathematical in my idea, and a mathematical model cannot expand. it has no spatial and temporal properties.

And yet it is the spatial dimensions in the mathematical model that expand. And that model makes predictions that are consistent with observation.

You really don't have a clue how science works, do you.

19 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

The difference will be that the mind will be included. That's a hugh difference.

Not if it doesn't actually make a difference. It is like writing the equation green ink instead of blue. It makes no difference.

As you are unable to articulate what difference this will make to cosmology, I can only assume that either you don't know (in which case the suggestion is pointless) or it is unmeasurable (in which case it isn't science).

20 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

The only reasonable way to measure time is with a (atomic) clock. And the clocks will not give us a defined age, because time is relative.

As clocks can measure time this is obviously ignorant nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I mean with expanding space: The Doppler-shift-measured velocity of various galaxies receding from the Earth  approximately proportional to their distance from the Earth.

I don't believe in the big bang theory. I do believe that the observed expansion has nothing to do with a socalled expansion of the universe since the big bang, beginning with a singularity. Because that's what expansion of the universe means. What I'm saying is: the observed expansion of space (Hubbles Law) is a relativistic observation of space.

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

Are you saying it is impossible to measure time, even with a clock? All of physics appears show that is wrong.

So, just perhaps, if one chooses a particular clock, one can use it to measure time in a consistent and well defined way.

No, what I'm saying is: there is no universal clock. No time of the universe in itself. Observers will disagree on the timescale of the universe.

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

What? I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

These demonstrations of ignorance (and lack of logical thinking) are rather embarrassing.

Show me the logically fallacy and tell me why it's a logical fallacy. 

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

There doesn't need to be a universal reference frame (there isn't). You just need to define whose clock you are using when you calculate the age.

The age is still relative. A relative expression of what a clock says gives us no information about the universe in itself. Another clock can say something totally  different.

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

What I mean with expanding space: The Doppler-shift-measured velocity of various galaxies receding from the Earth  approximately proportional to their distance from the Earth.

Your level of ignorance is almost unbelievable. 

It is not Doppler shift. 

28 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

I don't believe in the big bang theory.

I don’t believe you know what is, based on the evidence of this thread. 

29 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

I do believe that the observed expansion

So you agree we observe expansion?

29 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

has nothing to do with a socalled expansion of the universe since the big bang, beginning with a singularity.

No one thinks the universe began with a singularity. 

30 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Because that's what expansion of the universe means.

No. It means the universe was once hot and dense. And it has cooled since then as space has expanded. 

32 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

What I'm saying is: the observed expansion of space (Hubbles Law) is a relativistic observation of space.

Correct. 

33 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

No, what I'm saying is: there is no universal clock. No time of the universe in itself. Observers will disagree on the timescale of the universe.

Correct. (Although any disagreement will be far less than the accuracy of any measurements)

And they can agree on a particular clocks age  

 

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

A fat guy (more mass) will have a different idea about the socalled age of the universe then a tin guy. (less mass). They both disagree about the age of the universe since the socalled big bang because of their different mass. The difference in this case is neglectible but I use this example to show you that this whole idea of 'the age of the universe' doesn't work anymore when you think about the relativity of time (of age). 

The great thing about science is that we can quantify this. And yes, the difference is negligible. Even being on different planets in our solar system, or being in deep space, is not going to appreciably change the answer. If our answer is 14.7 billion years, they will not disagree with that. 

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.