Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

In this case, it's not about the calculations or the math. The calculations are been done. There were experiments with a comparison of atomic clocks in planes (the influence of speed on clocks) and we have the GPS corrections to prove that gravity has an influence on clocks. I agree (again): the difference is small. It's negligible for practical reasons and reasons of calculation (pragmatism). But it's not negligible for the philosophical implications (about the nature of reality) for in what kind of universe we live. We live in a universe where there can not be a preferenced referenceframe for time (for the age of the universe).  

Maths is the language being used in physics and if you don't understand the language you can't read/understand the book.

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'). 

Just now, Maartenn100 said:

the math is already done, we are talking about the theory (in well defined scientific terms) to explain the math. 

The maths is the theory. The maths makes predictions that are confirmed by observations. This confirms the theory.

 

Your baseless assertions that it must be wrong because of your religious beliefs are just silly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which religious beliefs? Please explain in detail what religion has to do with it. Where did I mention religious beliefs. So I can understand how you derrive conclusions based on premisses.

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

Which religious believes? please explain in detail what religion has logically to do with it. So I can understand how you derive conclusions based on premisses.

You believe something (your personal theory of the universe) that is (a) not supported by science and is (b) contradicted by evidence. I am not sure what else to call this sort of irrational belief. Maybe "quasi-religious belief" is more accurate, but is too much to write every time.

You behave just a like a Creationist: make an argument from ignorance; ignore or deny any evidence that shows you are wrong; repeat the same arguments as if no one has pointed out they are wrong. This type of argument from faith is deeply dishonest. 

Edited by Strange
Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all: I'm more a philosopher then a scientist. That's the reason why I placed this topic in philosphy and not in  physics on the forum. I'm interested in the philosophical implications for the nature of reality in itself. I don't deny that the math is important. But the philosophical implications (in words) are my focus. 

The philosophical implication is that we live in a universe where there can not be a universal clock. (Einstein).

What is the age of the universe for a photon? An object with absolute (non-relative) properties?

Zero.

There is your math.

I believe (not religious) that if you want a universal clock, use an object with absolute properties for time and space. Use a photon (or another massless object going at c). It will tell you the non-relativistic age of the universe in itself without observers. Zero. 

 

Edited by Maartenn100
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Strange said:
11 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

You could ask this scientist: "what do you mean with 'the beginning of time'. The fact is:: this scientist has no clue at all what the concept 'time begins' mean..

They mean there is a singularity.

This worth no more, than you would say, that there is an allmighty god with infinite energy and matter without spacetime.... Really?

What about evolution? Or that only applies after time...?

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

First of all: I'm more a philosopher then a scientist.

If that were true, you would be able to construct a logical argument free of logical fallacies. 

14 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

The philosophical implication is that we live in a universe where there can not be a universal clock. (Einstein).

That is not a philosophical implication, it is a scientific conclusion. Based on maths and evidence.

15 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

What is the age of the universe for a photon? An object with absolute (non-relative) properties?

Age is not defined for a photon. It does not have a valid frame of reference. And not all the properties are absolute.

As you are a "philosopher" you will recognise your statement as argumentum ad ignorantiam.

16 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

I believe (not religious) that if you want a universal clock

There is no universal clock. 

What you believe is irrelevant as you are totally ignorant of the relevant science.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is the fallacy?

Time is relative (Einstein) and observers disagree about the time rate passage (premisse)

Therefore no one can define an (absolute) age of the universe. (logical conclusion based on valid reasoning)

Therefore, the universe in itself has no definable age (according to who's clock?)

Please, show me the logical fallacies.

My claim is:

If you want to know an absolute age for the universe in itself, reference frame independent, use a photon. It will tell you, indeed, that the age of the universe in itself is undefined. A photon does not age. It is the universal clock. It's the absolute reference frame. It has the same properties for every observer. What is the nature of the universe in itself, referenceframe independent? Ask an object with the absolute property c (the speed of light). It is the universal referenceframe. t=0.  The universe in itself, reference frame independent, has no timeproperties.

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

Therefore no one can define an (absolute) age of the universe.

So what. No one is doing this.

13 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Where is the fallacy?

You are making ridiculous claims based on near total ignorance. 

14 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Therefore, the universe in itself has no definable age (according to who's clock?)

The age is defined relative to whatever clock you choose to use.

The age is different in seconds and years. Does that mean there is "no definable age"? Of course not.

14 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

If you want to know an absolute age for the universe in itself, reference frame independent, use a photon.

There is no absolute age.

A photon is not a valid reference frame.

16 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

It's the absolute reference frame.

No it isn't. It is not a valid reference frame. There is no absolute reference.

17 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

It has the same properties for every observer. 

No it doesn't. For example, if the two observers are moving relative to one another then they will measure the photon having different energy (or wavelength). Similarly, if they are at different gravitational potentials.

18 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

What is the nature of the universe in itself, referenceframe independent?

There are no measurements that can be made independently of a reference frame.

18 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Ask an object with the absolute property c (the speed of light). It is the universal referenceframe. t=0.  The universe in itself, reference frame independent, has no timeproperties.

Stop lying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

In my opinion, non-relativistic equations are not good to describe a relativistic reality. 

The phrase "relativistic" has a particular meaning in physics use. So it's not an issue of using non-relativistic equations to describe a relativistic reality. You are using them to describe a non-relativistic scenario. It only becomes relativistic when there is a meaningful difference in the predictions of the two models. IOW, if your relativistic equation tells you the answer is 1.00 eV, and the non-relativistic equation tells you the answer is 1.00 eV, then the situation is non-relativistic. What would be the point of doing the more complicated relativistic calculation?

1 hour ago, Maartenn100 said:

It's not because you will use non-relativistic equations for pragmatic and practical reasons, that reality in itself is suddenly also non-relativistic. For pragmatic reasons to build a house, an architect will use a flat Earth as an assumption for his drawings. Does that makes the Earth flat? Nope. Don't confuse pragmatic models of the world with reality in itself. 

But you are doing the equivalent of saying you can't build the house because the earth is not flat (even though locally it can actually be flat)

1 hour ago, Maartenn100 said:

In this case, it's not about the calculations or the math. The calculations are been done. There were experiments with a comparison of atomic clocks in planes (the influence of speed on clocks) and we have the GPS corrections to prove that gravity has an influence on clocks. I agree (again): the difference is small. It's negligible for practical reasons and reasons of calculation (pragmatism). But it's not negligible for the philosophical implications (about the nature of reality) for in what kind of universe we live. We live in a universe where there can not be a preferenced referenceframe for time (for the age of the universe).  

You mentioned the big bang, which is science, and its validity only depends on science. You and your version of philosophy can go elsewhere and contemplate the nature of reality, and misrepresent the scientific position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maartenn100,

Let's see this helps any.  I think you are Philosophically disturbed that you can't stand in a 2nd separate universe, observe time in this one, and therefore can't relate the passage of time to a standard clock of the 2nd separate universe to say "Ah Ha, now we have an 'Extra-Universal' time measurement that gives a more meaningful conveyance of time for us."  Even if you could do this, I don't think expressing the exact same length of time, with an extra-universal clock will have any impact on the calculations. 

You're getting wrapped around the axial by what time is to begin with.  All you're doing with the use of a time measurement is relating it back to something a Human can understand.  We're currently using the time it takes for Earth to circle the Sun one time as a way of conveying lengths of time.  Sure, it's extremely arbitrary, and that DOES NOT MATTER.  So, if it takes 1,000,000 years to travel to a particular star from Earth (and only from Earth), you can then imagine the time it takes for the Earth to circle the Sun, then imagine 1,000,000 of those time segments stacked one after another.

So, you will next argue that this number might be 1,000,001 years to some observer elsewhere.  Ok, no problem.  The information necessary for the adjustment did not vanish from our universe.  Once you have all the information about the remote observer, you make an adjustment to turn the 1,000,001 year measurement from the Andromeda Galaxy observer and convert it back to what it would mean over here on Earth.  You ARE NOT missing A YEAR of time.  The time it takes from Earth to this star is the time it takes.  That someone else observes something different is irrelevant.  It may appear to an Andromeda Galaxy observer that it will take 1 extra year than what the Earthlings are predicting, but this is an illusion that can be backed out of the measurements to get to real time it will take. 

The time it takes, when communicating with other Earthlings, is 1,000,000 Earth Years.  When you call your buddy in the Andromeda Galaxy be sure to let him know it will appear to take one year less than what he's calculating.  All remote observers measurements will be incorrect until you convert it's equivalence to both Earth Years and Earth's location (frame of reference). 

2 Observers, 2 different measurements, but once all factors are accounted for you are simply describing the EXACT SAME LENGTH OF THE EXACT SAME PASSAGE OF TIME before entering it in the calculations. 

That make better sense? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, thanks for the efforts of you all to try to explain to me why it is wrong what I'm thinking. I learn because of that. I'm not a scientist and maybe I do not understand the scientific position enough to reason from there. My wish is to add 'minds' or 'consciousness' to the equations, so to speak. I like the idea that we, conscious beings (humans and animals) have some role to play in nature, one way or the other. Till now it seems like we don't. All the laws of nature work just fine without us, animals and human being. We do not seem to be of any value when it comes to what exists in nature. The laws of physics and chemistry work blindly and they do not need conscious observers. I liked to play with the idea that observers were lawfully connected with their observations/measurements of space and time. So that we could say: consciousness  has a crucial underlying role to play, one way or the other, in nature and we, living beings, are some crucial factor here. It seems like reality doesn't need us to play this role. I wanted to defend the idea that consciousness is an undeniable factor in nature, but it seems like it isn't. And don't worry: I do not have some religious agenda here:-)  

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

My wish is to add 'minds' or 'consciousness' to the equations, so to speak.

Why? You admit it won't make any difference to the results, so it is unnecessary (see also: Occam's Razor).

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

Why? You admit it won't make any difference to the results, so it is unnecessary (see also: Occam's Razor).

Maybe it can explain phenomena we can't solve at the moment. Like the observation of the effects of the socalled dark matter or dark energy. My idea is that our position in the gravitational field makes us observe dark matter up there. And it has something to do with our experience of time. With the fact that the duration of the actual moment to us, is everywhere the same, although there is graviational timedilation involved. Therefore we observe these strange phenomena up there. It would solve certain equations we can't solve at the moment. An existing factor we can't measure nor mathematisise: consciousness. It's a blind spot in our observations, a zeropoint in our mathematics. But maybe it can  give answers to questions scientists can't solve at the moment.

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

Maybe it can explain phenomena we can't solve at the moment. Like the observation of the effects of the socalled dark matter or dark energy. My idea is that our position in the gravitational field makes us observe dark matter up there. And it has something to do with our experience of time. With the fact that the duration of the actual moment to us, is everywhere the same, although there is graviational timedilation involved. Therefore we observe these strange phenomena up there. It would solve certain equations we can't solve at the moment. An existing factor we can't measure nor mathematisise: consciousness. It's a blind spot in our observations, a zeropoint in our mathematics. But maybe it can  give answers to questions scientists can't solve at the moment.

Let's see the model that would show this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 I can only give you an experimental prediction, based on my hypothesis. 

Let me first say something about the special theory of relativity and about how observers perceive space:

Imagine a spaceship A is travelling very fast, near the speed of light, relative to an observer  in another spaceship B.

The fact is that the observers in spaceship A  will see that in their own spaceship A/reference frame, time flows as usual and there is no lengthcontraction of their own spaceship noticeable. The laws of Newton work just fine in the own reference frame. The observers in spaceship A and the observers in spaceship B will say that the spacedistortions (lengthcontraction in this case) and the timedilation are happening to the other spaceship, not to their own (from their perspective): the other spaceship contracts, there is timedilation of the clock of the other ship.

So, the ruler of the other spaceship is always distorted in relativity.

This relativistic observation of space, is (in my opinion) also happening when we look at the night sky into space, wherever we are.

Here on Earth, Earth orbiting the Sun in the Milkeyway, there is gravity dilating our clocks and curving our space. (the mass of the cluster, of the Milkey Way, of the Sun and Earth are dilating our clock and curving our space.)

But in our own referenceframe we don't experience a timedilation of our clock nor do we experience a curvature of our local ruler (just like in special theory of relativity).

But we see spacedistortions somewhere else: we observe the redshift of the emitted light of far away galaxies following Hubble's law. (space-expansion).

 

Experimental predictions:

My prediction is: when we are in another field of gravity, we will observe, from that position, another redshift of the emitted light by receding galaxies, due to Hubble's law.

The observed space expansion we see far away from us will be different.

That's an experimental prediction.

The reason is: our idea of time is normal to us in our own reference frame and there is nothing wrong with our ruler, to us. Wherever we are. The laws of Newton work just fine, wherever we are. But when we are in a stronger field of gravity, we will observe more spacedistortions somewhere else. Just like in the special theory of relativity.

Another experimental prediction is: locally we will not measure a curved ruler. (curved spaces) in our own reference frame. We can form a perfect triangle with lasers, locally,

All the angles in a triangle add up to 180, wherever we are in space, locally. Even when we are close to a black hole. That's a prediction. The huge curvature of space will be seen somewhere else. just like in the special theory of relativity.

wherever we are, and to us there will be no curvature of space locally, and our time will not go slower in our experience. (the same duration of the actual moment, wherever we are) Like in the spaceship of the observers of spaceship A. Their ruler and their clock flow normal to them wherever they are. But they know there is a lengthcontraction  happening to the other ship. The spacedistortions are always observed somewhere else. Wherever we are. 

And the reason is: we experience time normal, wherever we are, and we use our own idea of uncurved space in our curved spacetime environement as the standard for the observation of curved or expanding spaces somewhere else.

 

 

 

 

 

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

I can only give you an experimental prediction, based on my hypothesis.

That is all we ask.

49 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

The observed space expansion we see far away from us will be different.

That's an experimental prediction.

You need to quantify this.

49 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

And the reason is: we experience time normal, wherever we are, and we use our own idea of uncurved space in our curved spacetime environement as the standard for the observation of curved or expanding spaces somewhere else.

As we know the mass in our local environment, we can calculate the amount of gravitational time dilation it will cause.

If you do that, you will find that:

1. It is too small

2. It is in the wrong direction (blue rather than red shift)

3. It is independent of distance.

 

And this doesn't appear to have any connection with including "mind" in the theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

double

39 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

As we know the mass in our local environment, we can calculate the amount of gravitational time dilation it will cause.

If you do that, you will find that:

1. It is too small

small is relative. To an observer in intergalactic space, the timedilation (relative to his clock) of our clocks here on Earth is bigger, then the timedilation on Earth relative to an astronaut's clock orbiting Earth. Therefore, 'timedilation' is a relative statement. That's how I understand it.

Every observer will use his own clock (his own idea of normal timeflow) and his own ruler (his own idea of an uncurved/unstretched line) as a standard to measure the amount of curvature, stretch, contraction and dilation of time and space somewhere else.

To an observer near a black hole, there is no timedilation of time on Earth, but a timecontraction, relative to his clock near the black hole. He has a different idea of normal timeflow near the black hole. Our time is contracted relative to his clock.

Timedilation and timecontraction are relative statements.

To us, there is no timedilation of time. There is a timecontraction of the clocks above Earth relative to our idea of a normal timeflow on our clock.

Wether there is (gravitational) timedilation and the amount of it depends on who's clock you use to compare the time rate passage.

Therefore 'curvature' of spacetime is relative. To an observer near a black hole, space and time are not curved on Earth, but time is contracted and space is expanded, relative to his ruler and clock near the black hole.

That's how I understand timedilation/contraction and curvature and stretch of space.

These are all relative statements.

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

small is relative.

It will be smaller than we measure. That is what "too small" means.

38 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Therefore, 'timedilation' is a relative statement. That's how I understand it.

It is relative. But is is also quantifiable. Just guessing that it will give the results you want is no science.

This is why science demands quantifiable predictions.

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

It will be smaller than we measure. That is what "too small" means.

It is relative. But is is also quantifiable. Just guessing that it will give the results you want is no science.

This is why science demands quantifiable predictions.

Actually for this theory to be true, I only have to proof that a different position of an observer in the field of gravity will result in a different observation of the nightsky. It's only necessary to proof that there is a difference. How much (the exact quantificication) is not necessary to proof my hypotheses. The fact that we will observe a different redshift of the emitted light of receding galaxies far away, and this different observation correlates with our different position in the fields of gravity,  is sufficient enough to proof that there is a causal relationship beween your position in the gravitational field and what you observe in the nightsky. There must only be a measurable difference in the numbers. You don't need to predict the exact numbers. The fact that there will be a difference is sufficient enough to proof my point.

By the way, on forums like this I always see that people expect that you can deliver a new nobel price  in science or you meet a lot of hostelity and your idea will be qualified as been complete nonsense. Or you must have a breakthrough in science when you think differently or you are a crackpot. A normal discussion with some interesting pro and contra arguments on a free discussion forum without meeting the standards of a peerreviewed scientific article delivering the next big theory in science is not possibly.  Or you accept the scientific concensus of the moment, of these day and age or you are a pseudoscientist, someone with the Dunning Kruger syndrom or a crackpot. When you have different ideas you are been seen as ignorant.  Very offensive terms for people who just have different ideas then the scientists of this day and age and want share them on a forum with people with the same intrests.

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

Actualy for this theory to be true, I only have to proof that a difference in the field of gravitatie will result in a different observations os the nightsky.

We already know this to be true. So you need to go one step further and calculate the size of the effect and show that matches what we observe.

10 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

How much (the exact quantificication) is not necessary to proof my hypotheses.

 

Quote

There must only be a difference in the numbers. You don't need to predict the numbers. The fact that there will be a difference is sufficient to proof my point.

The numbers are important, whether you like it or not. You can't say "any difference" will confirm your hypothesis. What if the difference is +100, does that confirm your hypothesis? What if the difference is -20, does that also confirm your hypothesis? What if no difference is seen; does that show you are wrong, or just that the measurements are not accurate enough.

You should be able to apply your hypothesis to predict what we see, when observing from Earth. So, if I understand your hypothesis correctly, you are saying that the gravity of Earth (or the solar system? or the galaxy?) will produce the red-shifts we describe as Hubble's Law, is that correct?

The trouble is, the values predicted by this hypothesis will be:

1. Too small (it probably won't even be detectable)

2. In the wrong direction (blue rather than red shift)

3. Independent of distance (so it can't account for Hubble's law)

Now, feel free to do the calculations yourself and show me that I am wrong. But this is why you (and anyone with a hypothesis) need to quantify the predictions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there is a huge chance that I'm wrong. And it seems like some things I thought are already been discovered/proven in science.

And, I cannot quantify my predictions yet. It's a theory under construction, so to speak. 

Let me give you some more ideas/unquantifible predictions, and maybe you can tell me wether the ideas already exist or are probable wrong.

 

We know that there is gravitational timedilation. So, there is also gravitational timecontraction. And that happens when two massive bodies are going away from each other. The influence of the mass on the clock between these bodies decreases when the space in between them expands, and there will be a gravitational timecontraction of the hypothetical clocks in the region between these receding massive bodies.

So, the further away from us, the more gravitational timecontraction of the hypothetical clocks in intergalactic space. (Hubble's Law about distant receding galaxies)

My idea is, that far away, where galaxies or clusters of galaxies are receding at very high speeds due to the socalled expansion of the universe, the time rate passage of hypothetical clocks in the intergalactic regions over here are going faster and faster to infinity. There is a gravitational timecontraction towards infinity outthere. Because the influence of the masses of these clusters of galaxies and the bodies closer to us on the hypothetical clocks in these expanding intergalactic regions of space over there is decreasing to infinity due to Hubble's law. 

I hope you understand what I mean. 

The further away, the more gravitational timecontraction, because 'the universe is expanding', so the influence of the gravity on the intergalactic regions decreases towards infinity. Time goes faster and faster far away, relative to our idea of time locally.

But I think that an observer in these intergalactic regions far away from us, in this expanding space, doesn't observer these expansions between the galaxies or galaxieclusters locally. But he will 'observe an increasing amount of curvature of spacetime down here. Where we are. 

Wherever we are, as observers of space, we do not observe expansion nor contraction of spaces locally. We will have a normal observation of space locally.

Therefore we will observe expansion and contraction somewhere else.

Is this idea already a scientific truth or is it just my idea (and maybe totally wrong).

 

 

 

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

I hope you understand what I mean.

Not really. Which is another reason why science uses mathematics: it allows precise and unambiguous descriptions.

You seem to be saying that redshift is due to the gravitational well of our galaxy. There are many problems with this:

1. The effect will be tiny (and possibly too small to measure - you need to quantify it)

2. From within a gravity well, external sources will be relatively blue shifted not red shifted

3. It will affect everything we observe but cosmological red shift only occurs on very large scales

4. You include galaxies receding from one another (i.e. expanding space) and that explains the red shift we observe so your idea is unnecessary.

5. ... 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I mean is: with a cosmological expansion there must be an increase of gravitational contracton of hypothetical clocks in the intergalactic expanding regio'ns. Because the influence of the gravity of the rest of the universe on hypothetical clocks in these expanding regions of space decreases more and more. Time flows faster and faster over there. 

An increasing time contraction over there to infinity.

 

The physics and math already exists. There is Hubble's law and we know that decreasing of mass due to space-expansion between massive bodies causes gravitational timecontraction. Now imagine that the influence of the mass of the bodies of the rest of the universe on the expanding space decreases to infinity. The clock over there will go faster and faster and faster.

Edited by Maartenn100
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.