Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

The physics and math already exists.

And it works perfectly well without having to include gravitational time dilation. 

Do you want to know why it doesn't include gravitational time dilation? Then work out how large the gravitational time dilation would be. That will explain why it is irrelevant. (Hint: I have already told you the answer but you didn't believe me. If you work it out for yourself, maybe you will be convinced.)

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'). 

5 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Welk that's indeed the difference with my hypotheses.  In my theory all the bodies in the universe have an influence on our clock. Relative to an empty universe our time is going very slow.

Evidence?

(I suspect this is pointless and you will just continue to insist you are right despite there being no evidence and theory supporting your claims.)

Edited by Strange
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's Logically derived from the already existing theory of gravitational timedilation. If mass curves spacetime, then the mass of all the bodies in the universe combined curves spacetime. Where is the fallacy?

 

Therefore: relative to an empty universe our clock goes very slow.

 

Where is the fallacy?

 

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

It's Logically derived from the already existing theory of gravitational timedilation. If mass curves spacetime, then the mass of all the bodies in the universe combined curves spacetime. Where is the fallacy?

You said "that's indeed the difference with my hypotheses". You are now saying it is the same as existing theory. So how can it be different?

We know mass curves space-time. That is where we get the Big Bang theory (you know expanding space/universe that you reject). So the curvature of space-time is included in current theories.

If you want to show that current theories are not calculating the curvature of spacetime correctly, then you need to show your "correct" calculations. Otherwise you are just making baseless assertions.

10 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Therefore: relative to an empty universe our clock goes very slow.

Please calculate how much slower and demonstrate that this is relevant. 

11 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Where is the fallacy?

You are just making assertions with no evidence or theory to support them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you expect from me that I can calculate the influence of all masses of all bodies of the entire universe on our clock here on Earth?  That I can compare this with the time rate passage of a clock in a completely empty universe?

Don't you think that you expect too much here?

It's reasonable to think that all the masses in the universe have an influence on the clocks in that universe. That there is a difference with a massless universe.  But don't expect from a human being to calculate the gravitational timedilation caused by all these masses in the universe combined. Sorry, I can't do that on this forum in this topic here and I don't think a person can do that.

My hypothesis: there is no 'whole expanding universe with defined spatial and timeproperties.

There are only different observers with their own idea of a normal timeflow (a particular clock) and their own local idea of an uncurved or unexpanded straight line. (particular ruler). They observe expanding space far away, according to their own particular idea of an uncurved and unexpanded ruler in their particular referenceframe.

When the big bangtheory is true, then the gravitational timedilation in the beginning must had been enormous, because all mass and energy was together. The curvature must have been enormous. The beginning of time must have gone very very slow. Slower then the time rate passage around a black hole;  The curvature of spacetime was enourmous in the beginning. The fastness of time must have been increased since the big bang. Because space between the mass expanded.

(I don't know all the answers, but this reasoning seems logical to me).

 

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

 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.

No, it's not. You need to quantify it. How different will it be?

18 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

 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.

How is this different from relativity?

 

16 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

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.

This reminds me of the Stephen Wright bit that someone broke into his room and replaced everything with an exact replica.

If you can't falsify a claim, then it's not a scientific hypothesis. If there is no measurable difference, then who is going to give a flying leap about it? 

16 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

 

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.

Show that the difference is measurable.

16 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

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.

On the contrary, it's the people showing up that claim they will be given a Nobel. We'd settle for some legitimate science. But what we get almost always omits the math, as if it's some triviality rather than recognizing that it's the most important part.

16 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

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.

Invariably the folks who think this way are simply not familiar with the evidence of why we think a certain way, or accept why certain models are the best. And, sadly, they often aren't interested in learning, nor can they present any compelling evidence that might change anyone's mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, it's not. You need to quantify it. How different will it be?

You ask me to quantify the difference between a clock in a (hypothetical) massless and empty universe versus our clock here on Earth. To quantify the difference of time rate passage between these two clocks? I'm not able to do that. But there is a 'massive' difference, and that can be logically derived from the idea that mass curves spacetime.

Quote

How is this different from relativity?

 

The difference with the current scientific consensus is that I say that the universe in itself is not expanding. Expanding space is only a relativistic observation, done by an observer with a particular ruler and a particular clock. There is no 'expansion of the universe in itself'. There is a relativistic observation of expanding space.

Another difference is that I believe that the clocks in these far intergalactic regions of expanding space are ticking faster and faster to infinity. In the current scientific theories, they think that the graviational timecontraction is negligible.

 

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

You ask me to quantify the difference between a clock in a (hypothetical) massless and empty universe versus our clock here on Earth. To quantify the timedilation? I'm not able to do that. But there is a difference, and that can be logically derived from the idea that mass curves spacetime.

And everybody familiar with relativity knows this.

But you're acting like it's a big deal, and everybody familiar with relativity doesn't think so, because A) we know how small the effect is, and B) if need be, you can just define the age of the universe from a particular reference frame, and make corrections for other frames, which is not a big deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If everybody knows this already, why do the moderators put my theory in the 'speculations' section of the forum? First it was wrong and you asked many questions (your own previous writings) and suddenly it is already been known 'but it is not a big deal'.  

You keep your theory immune for falsication by saying that 'it's negligible or 'it's not a big deal'. 

 

Swansont, there are differences between my idea and the current scientific theories.

I say: the universe in itself is not expanding, there are only relativistic observations of (expanding) space.

I think that 4D-spacetime is a mathematical platonic entity (very real and absolute), but only deducable. Not measurable nor observable.  with undefined spatial and timeproperties. Until an observer exists. An observer will define the spatial and timeproperties according to his own referenceframe.

That's a difference with the current theories. 

 

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

You ask me to quantify the difference between a clock in a (hypothetical) massless and empty universe versus our clock here on Earth. To quantify the difference of time rate passage between these two clocks? I'm not able to do that. But there is a 'massive' difference,

How do you know the difference is "massive" if you cannot quantify it?

 

11 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

If everybody knows this already, why do the moderators put my theory in the 'speculations' section of the forum?

Because you are claiming that the Big Bang theory is wrong.

There isn't actually a section of the forum called "I Don't Know What I am Talking About But I Am Going to Make Some Stuff Up" so "Speculations" seems the best fit.

13 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

You keep your theory immune for falsication by saying that 'it's negligible or 'it's not a big deal'. 

It is up to you falsify current theory by showing that there is a MASSIVE difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange, you say that I don't know what I'm talking about and that I make stuff up .

Swanson says that everybody knows what I'm writing, that it is not different from relativity (so, he says it's true), but it's not a big deal. It's true but negligible, he says.

You are contradicting each other here.

 

Even a layman can understand that 'if time is relative, there is no such thing as 'an age of the universe'.

Every child knows that 'if space is relative', there can not be a certain amount of expanded space at a certain moment in time, because not only time, but also space is relative.

That's as simple as 1+1=2, but is more solid then a rock.

To say that 'it's negligible' or 'it's not a big deal'. That's not scientific.

These 'negligible' facts are facts of the universe and make a very big difference for in what kind of universe we live.

Edited by Maartenn100
Link to post
Share on other sites

Might help if you look up the difference between coordinate time and proper time under relativity. There is an age all observers can agree upon, Cosmology uses a fundamental observer which is an observer in the global background conditions (in essence). However all past lightcones will lead to the same BB singularity conditions of the BB at 10^43 sec. 

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

Might help if you look up the difference between coordinate time and proper time under relativity. There is an age all observers can agree upon, Cosmology uses a fundamental observer which is an observer in the global background conditions (in essence)

I know scientists use the comoving frame. But that's in total contradiction with the premisse of relativity that there can be no prefered reference frame. That there is no universal clock. That's an important violation of that premisse.

Scientists also seem to use the comoving frame to determine the 'true' velocity of Earth' in the Galaxy f.e. That's a violation of the principle that there is no absolute standard for motion in the universe possible.

Edited by Maartenn100
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not a preferred frame its a chosen frame by convention. Big difference, professional cosmologist know how to account for relativity. Its part of the curriculum in the first semester.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's indeed an arbitrary frame. You can also use another frame. So, you can not make any absolutee statement about the age of the universe. Because using another frame will give you other numbers.

The fact that  you need to use a frame by convention proofs the point that we live in a universe where we can make no absolute statements for time and space for the universe in itself. 

 

Edited by Maartenn100
Link to post
Share on other sites

it's basic physics: speed is relative. Look it up. 

Only the speed of light is absolute, relative to every observer.

There are three main constants in the universe:

an observer (a mind)

the speed of light

mathematical entity 4D-spacetime (non-dimensional conceptualised 4D-object).

 

These triade (mind-speed of light-mathematical entity, conceptualised 4D-spacetime) results in an observable universe.

Edited by Maartenn100
Link to post
Share on other sites

If spacetime does not expand and i quess by that you suppose it is infinite.

Could you explain, how every single physical entity observable has some velocity? What is the reason for the overall implied velocity in your theory, and which force maintain the observable and measurable velocities of any object?

10 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Only the speed of light is absolute, relative to every observer.

Isn't every observer can perceive it the same. Than it is not relative. 

10 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

There are three main constants in the universe:

an observer (a mind)

the speed of light

mathematical entity 4D-spacetime (non-dimensional conceptualised 4D-object).

The mind can not be constant. Mine is constantly changing...i learn and forget things... I do not get your concept...

Speed of light ok.

Space time is a physical entity expessible with mathematics. Could be 4D. 

 

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

If spacetime does not expand and i quess by that you suppose it is infinite.

Spacetime is, in my opinion (and I can be wrong) a non-dimensional conceptualised 4D-object.

We cannot measure it (only indirectly), we can only deduce it, mathematically. To us, it's pure a conceptualised non-dimensional idea of a 4D-object. Such an object has no spatial and timeproperties. It''s a Platonic entity, very real, even more absolute then our relativistic observations of space and time, but it can only be conceptualised.  Such a conceptualised object cannot expand. It has no dimensions. It's a concept. Very real, even more real then our observations, but it has no spatial or timeproperties.

Quote

Could you explain, how every single physical entity observable has some velocity?

You always need a (arbitrary chosen) reference frame to determine the velocity of an object, in my opinion.

Quote

What is the reason for the overall implied velocity in your theory, and which force maintain the observable and measurable velocities of any object?

In every reference frame, the laws of Newton (for motion) work just fine. There is no difference between my idea and scientific theories about motion.

I only say: all these statements about age and motion are relative, reference frame dependent. That's in line with the premisse of relativity. The use of a convention to define a frame to make universal statements about the universe is violiting the premisse of relativity. (see above).

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

Spacetime is, in my opinion (and I can be wrong) a non-dimensional conceptualised 4D-object.

We cannot measure it (only indirectly), we can only deduce it, mathematically. To us, it's pure a conceptualised non-dimensional idea of a 4D-object. Such an object has no spatial and timeproperties. It''s a Platonic entity, very real, even more absolute then our relativistic observations of space and time, but it can only be conceptualised.  Such a conceptualised object cannot expand. It has no dimensions. It's a concept. Very real, even more real then our observations, but it has no spatial or timeproperties.

You always need a (arbitrary chosen) reference frame to determine the velocity of an object, in my opinion.

In every reference frame, the laws of Newton (for motion) work just fine. There is no difference between my idea and scientific theories about motion.

I only say: all these statements about age and motion are relative, reference frame dependent. That's in line with the premisse of relativity. The use of a convention to define a frame to make universal statements about the universe is violiting the premisse of relativity. (see above).

The only purpose of theory of relativity is to better understand reality. Spacetime is part of the Natural Reality.

Edited by Lasse
Link to post
Share on other sites

i do not disagree with you. Spacetime is very real. It's even 'more real' then our observations of space and our measurements of time. But a timedimension always needs a referenceframe; And observers will always disagree about the rate of time passage. So, there cannot be a universal statement about time, nor space. (space is also relative).

Since space  and time are relative by nature, the universe in itself (spacetime), can not have such relativistic  properties. According to which observer? 

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

Spacetime is, in my opinion (and I can be wrong) a non-dimensional conceptualised 4D-object.

How can it be non-dimensional if it also 4-dimensional. For a "philosopher" you do talk a lot of bollocks.

10 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

We cannot measure it (only indirectly), we can only deduce it, mathematically.

We can measure it directly. We can measure changes to length and to time. (In other words, changes to space and time.) And these are exactly as predicted by the theory (not a concept you seem to be familiar with).

11 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Such a conceptualised object cannot expand. It has no dimensions.

It has FOUR dimensions. Three of them can expand.

12 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

In every reference frame, the laws of Newton (for motion) work just fine.

Nope. That is (partly) why relativity was invented. For example, the precession of Mercury cannot be explained by Newtonian physics.

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.