Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Maartenn100 said:

But a timedimension always need a referenceframe;

That is space.

1 minute ago, Maartenn100 said:

observers will always disagree about the rate of time passage

True but how does the different observers could have impact on the fundamental age of the universe?

Lets assume you are 40 years old.

We ask 3 unknow persons: 5 years old Sara, 40 years old Jack and 70 years old Mary to guess your age. Sara says you are 28, Jack that you are 42 and Mary says you are 35.

Did your age changed because of their relative perception?

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'). 

54 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

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.

Nope. I have also said that you are not saying anything new about the curvature of space time and time dilation due to gravity.

Where you go wrong is in asserting that the mass of the Earth causes a MASSIVE difference. It doesn't. It causes a minute difference. And that difference is rapidly overwhelmed by cosmological red-shift.

56 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

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

Nope. Because it is bollocks.

56 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

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

It is scientific when I have a rough idea of how large the effect is and you ignorantly claim it is MASSIVE. 

If you want to prove that the effect is MASSIVE and not insignificant, then do the calculations.

57 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

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

Then show us how big this difference is. If you can't do that, then stop claiming it. Because it is a baseless assertion. And as a "philosopher" you know that assertions are a form of fallacy.

It is as stupid as someone saying "I can walk to the moon" but refusing to acknowledge the distance and the absence of stairs.

49 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

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.

It is not a preferred frame, it is just an arbitrary (but convenient) choice.

You are saying that using a 24 hour clock is a preferred frame. It isn't. It is just a convention.

50 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

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.

No it isn't. It is just a choice of a particular, convenient frame of reference.

When you are driving down the road, you use the road as a reference to determine your speed. That doesn't make the road a preferred frame, it is just a choice of reference.

43 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

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.

So what? You can measure a distance in feet or meters. It doesn't mean that distance is meaningless. You just cite the distance (or age of the universe) in the units you have chosen to use.

36 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

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.

And you wonder why your threads get put in Speculations? Because of this sort of drivel.

44 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Than what is the speed of light?

Please don't try and learn from Maartenn. He is totally ignorant and will only confuse you.

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

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. 

 

 

Do yourself a favor, run through the age of the universe calculations rather than simply making incorrect and unsupported statements such as the above.

 If you do you will find that every observer will come across the same BB singularity conditions. All lightcones will cross at an identical point at a single planck length regardless of which observer you use.

Every lightcone.... from every observer....This is the shared causality past that defines the current observable universe.

PS they all involve Hubbles parameter. (though you also need to account for mass/radiation and Lambda evolution for greater accuracy as Hubbles parameter evolves. 

 

 

Edited by Mordred
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me first tell you something else, if I may:

The relativity of space

On Earth, in laboratories, we are used to the ‘relativity of time’. We compare atomic clocks in planes vs clocks on the ground, we compare clocks in satelites with clocks on Earth. We are used to the relativity of time. To gravitational timedilation and to timedilation because of relative speed.

But when we look at the ‘cosmological redshift’ and observe ‘expanding space’, we think that the whole universe is expanding. We don’t think about the fact that space is also relative.

We are not familiar with the relativity of space (lengtcontraction, spacestretch, spacecontraction). We think about lengthcontraction as something happening in extreme conditions with hypothetical spaceships near the speed of light.

We do not think about the socalled cosmological redshift as a relativistic expansion of space.  

We think that the whole universe is expanding. No, just our observed space is expanding, as observed from withtin a gravitational well.

Is there an expansion of the space between atoms? Do we observe an expansion of space between molecules? Do we observe an expansion of space in our own solar system?

Why not? Because all the clocks have almost the same timerate passage locally.

The relativistic spacedeformations are always observed somewhere else. Never locally.

It has nothing to do with a whole universe, in itself expanding.

It has only something to do with different clocks, and therefore a different observation of space up there.

Time- and spaceobservations hang together like twins.

In special relativity, the observers in the spaceship travelling near light speed, observe an increasing blueshift of the emitted light of far galaxies. There is a shrink of space in the direction of motion, to them.

Do they conlcude that the whole universe is shrinking in one direction?

No, because they know that they observe a relativistic spaceshrink due to their speed.

Not only time is relative, space is also relative.

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

But when we look at the ‘cosmological redshift’ and observe ‘expanding space’, we think that the whole universe is expanding. We don’t think about the fact that space is also relative.

Of course we do. 

You are talking about the General Relativity and then claim that people don't think about General Relativity when they are using General Relativity.

That makes NO SENSE.

28 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

We are not familiar with the relativity of space (lengtcontraction, spacestretch, spacecontraction).

Of course we are. It is described by General Relativity.

28 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

We think about lengthcontraction as something happening in extreme conditions with hypothetical spaceships near the speed of light.

You might. But people who understand General Relativity don't.

We can measure gravitational red-shift here on earth over distance of about 1 metre. There is nothing magical or mysterious about this.

28 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

We do not think about the socalled cosmological redshift as a relativistic expansion of space.  

Of course we do. The cosmological redshift is due to the relativistic expansion of space.

You are not making much sense. You seem to be getting increasingly desperate in your attempt to deny relativity and the Big Bang model.

28 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

We think that the whole universe is expanding. No, just our observed space is expanding

They are the same thing.

It is the same thing described using different words.

"The universe is expanding" means the same thing as "space is expanding".

They are different words describing the same thing.

The words "space is expanding" mean the same thing as "the universe is expanding".

They mean the same thing.

They both refer to the metics expansion of space as described by the FLRW metric.

The FLRW metric describes the expansion of space also known as the expansion of the universe.

They both mean the same thing.

Do you begin to see my point?

In case you missed it: they are the same thing.

28 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Is there an expansion of the space between atoms? Do we observe an expansion of space between molecules? Do we observe an expansion of space in our own solar system?

We don't even see expansion of space between galaxies. 

28 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Why not? Because locally, we do not observe relativistic expansions of space. Only far away from us, and it has something to do with our particular clock and particular ruler.

Bollocks. It is because locally things are held together by gravity (and electromagnetic forces).

28 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

It has nothing to do with a whole universe, in itself expanding.

But you just said space is expanding. Now you are saying that space is not expanding.

Let me rephrase that: you just said that the universe is expanding, now you say that the universe is not expanding.

This is ridiculous. You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about.

 

Edited by Strange
Link to post
Share on other sites

If 'expanding space' outthere is relativistic, then other observers will disagree about 'the socalled expanding universe'.

Why do you make statements about the universe in itself expanding, while the expanding space is relativistic, so other observers will disagree about the expanded space (because it's relativistic).

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

If 'expanding space' outthere is relativistic, then other observers will disagree about 'the socalled expanding universe'.

True. If you were near a black hole then you would see different red-shifts and a different temperature of the CMB. 

So what.

2 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Why do you make statements about the universe in itself expanding, while the expanding space is relativistic,

Because, and read this carefully because it is pretty complicated stuff - it usually takes people about 100 years of postgraduate studies in linguistics to understand this subtle point: THEY MEAN THE SAME THING.

Let's try and make this simple for those who are struggling with this concept. 

It is possible for different words to mean the same thing. For example, the word "tune" means the same thing as the word "melody." Or the word "automobile" means the same thing as "car".

Similarly, the phrase "expansion of space" means the same thing as "expanding universe". The two phrases are both metaphors that refer to exactly the same thing.

So, you are saying "tunes don't exist but melodies do." Or "cars don't exist but automobiles do."

Do you realise how stupid and ignorant this makes you sound? Why would you do that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you cannot make statements about the spatial properties of the whole universe, expanding, while this expansion is only a particular notion of a particular observer with a particular ruler. That's the whole difference with my theory.

My theory says: you can only make relative statements about space (and time).

You cannot make any absolute statement about the spatial dimensions of the universe in itself. 

You cannot generalise thjs to the whole universe, because other observers will disagree about the expanded universe. 

The universe, in itself, without observers, has no such expanding properties. According to who's ruler?

And I don't call you stupid or ignorant because you think differently.

Edited by Maartenn100
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your theory means nothing when it has nothing including math to back it up. The universe is expanding except in gravitationally bound regions. This is simple physics the strength of gravity or the electromagnetic force locally overpowers Lambda.

 The expansion only occurs in regions such as the voids between large scale structure formation. 

Edited by Mordred
Link to post
Share on other sites

The math already exists, it's the interpretation of the already existing math, what it means for our universe.

The math of Hubble's law exists. The observations/measurements of the redshift of emitted ligth due to the socalled cosmological redshift are been done.

It's the interpetation of this as 'a universe in itself expanding' what's wrong in my opinion.

 

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

No, you cannot make statements about the spatial properties of the whole universe, expanding, while this expansion is only a particular notion of a particular observer with a particular ruler. That's the whole difference with my theory.

Then please show the mathematical predictions and the supporting evidence for your theory.

2 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

My theory says: you can only make particular statements about space (and time). 

And how is that different from what GR does?

2 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

You cannot generalise thjs to the whole universe, because other observers will disagree about the expanded universe.

That is a non-sequitur.

But the same theory that tells us that space is expanding also tells us what other observers will see. 

And as we have evidence of expansion from the whole of the observable universe, your claim is unjustified.

4 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

The universe, in itself, without observers, has no such expanding properties.

As we have evidence of expanding space going back nearly 14 billion years and there have only been observers for just over 100 years, this is obviously nonsense.

5 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

And I don't call you stupid or ignorant because you think differently.

I didn't call you stupid or ignorant. I said it sounds stupid and ignorant to say that X exists and at the same time X doesn't exist. If you stop doing that, you won't sound so foolish.

It isn't "thinking differently" to not understand that "expansion of space" means exactly the same thing as "expansion of the universe".

Did you miss the bit where I explained how they are the same thing?

2 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

It's the interpetation of this as 'a universe in itself expanding' what's wrong in my opinion.

Your opinion is worthless, as you have repeatedly demonstrated in this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think about the following:

In special theory of relativity, two ships with the same speed near the speed of light will 'see' that their clocks tick the same and they will not observe a lengthcontraction of the other spaceship.

It's exactly the same thing in the gravitational fields. When we observe a galaxy with the same time rate passage on Earth, we will not see any expansion of space in that galaxy. 

That's why space is not expanding over there in our opinion. Because we have the same clocks.

Where there are different clocks (because of gravitational timedilation/contraction) we will observe a space-expansion/contraction.

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

The math already exists, it's the interpretation of the already existing math, what it means for our universe.

If the math is the same, then the result is the same: space (aka the universe) is expanding.

Just now, Maartenn100 said:

In special theory of relativity, two ships with the same speed near the speed of light will 'see' that their clocks tick the same and they will not observe a lengthcontraction of the other spaceship.

Not necessarily.

Just now, Maartenn100 said:

It's exactly the same thing in the gravitational fields. When we observe a galaxy with the same time rate passage on Earth, we will not see any expansion of space in that galaxy. 

There is no expansion in galaxies.

1 minute ago, Maartenn100 said:

Where there are different clocks (because of gravitational timedilation/contraction) we will observe a space-expansion/contraction.

So if this is a testable prediction of your hypothesis then it is falsified.We don't see expansion between galaxies, even though there is a lower gravitational potential.

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

Think about the following:

In special theory of relativity, two ships with the same speed near the speed of light will 'see' that their clocks tick the same and they will not observe a lengthcontraction of the other spaceship.

It's exactly the same thing in the gravitational fields. When we observe a galaxy with the same time rate passage on Earth, we will not see any expansion of space in that galaxy. 

That's why space is not expanding over there in our opinion. Because we have the same clocks.

Where there are different clocks (because of gravitational timedilation/contraction) we will observe a space-expansion/contraction.

This statement makes no sense 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not disagree with the math. It's the interpretation of what you observe.

You observe an expansion of space (socalled cosmological redshift) and you interprete this as an 'expansion of the universe'.

No, it's just a relativistic observation of space. Other observers will disagree.

So, relativistic expansion has nothing to do with a universe expanding in itself.

7 minutes ago, Mordred said:

This statement makes no sense 

Why? 

Imagine you are in a spaceship, going ver fast near the speed of light relative to Earth.

Imagine another spaceship, going with the same speed relative to Earth.

The observers in both ships will 'observe' no lengtcontraction of the other spaceship. They will have the same time rate passage and all laws of Newton work just fine.

Why: because they have the same ruler/clock.

It's exactly the same in the gravitational fields. When you have the same time rate passage of your clock, you will see nothing happening with space in the other frame. 

To them both ships are not moving.

Space-observations and timemeasurements are connected.

You cannot make any statement about the spatial conditions of a universe in itself.

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

You observe an expansion of space (socalled cosmological redshift) and you interprete this as an 'expansion of the universe'.

What is wrong with you?

"Expansion of space" is a metaphor.

"Expansion of the universe" is a metaphor.

They are both metaphors for exactly the same thing.

You cannot say that one exists but the other one didn't.

8 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

No, it's just a relativistic observation of space. Other observers will disagree.

The fact it is relativistic doesn't mean it isn't happening.

8 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

So, relativistic expansion has nothing to do with a universe expanding in itself.

Hey, guess what: THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

As you are incapable of understanding this simple fact or are just trolling, I am going to suggest that the mods close this thread.

Edited by Strange
Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling someone stupid, ignorant, dunning Kruger etc. Nice on this forum.

The universe in itself, (=without any observer), has no defined spatial properties and their is no defined time rate passage (according to who's clock?).

Edited by Maartenn100
Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine you are in a spaceship, going ver fast near the speed of light relative to Earth.

Imagine another spaceship, going with the same speed relative to Earth.

The observers in both ships will 'observe' no lengtcontraction of the other spaceship. They will have the same time rate passage and all laws of Newton work just fine.

To them both ships are not moving.

Why: because they have the same ruler/clock.

It's exactly the same thing in the gravitational fields. When you have the same time rate passage as what's happening in another galaxy, you will see nothing happening with space over there. 

 

Space-observations and timemeasurements are connected.

You cannot make any universal statement about the spatial conditions/time rate passage of a universe in itself.

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

Imagine you are in a spaceship, going ver fast near the speed of light relative to Earth.

Imagine another spaceship, going with the same speed relative to Earth.

The observers in both ships will 'observe' no lengtcontraction of the other spaceship.

Not necessarily. You haven't said what their relative velocity is. (You do know the difference between speed and velocity, don't you?)

1 minute ago, Maartenn100 said:

You cannot make any statement about the spatial conditions of a universe in itself.

As the expansion of space is not the same as relative speed or gravitational time dilation, your argument is irrelevant.

We can measure the expansion of space throughout the observable universe so there is no doubt that space is expanding. You can keep denying it but the evidence is against you.

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

 

We can measure the expansion of space throughout the observable universe so there is no doubt that space is expanding. You can keep denying it but the evidence is against you.

Whatever you measure is relative, other observers will disagree. So, why are you generalising this to all possible observers?

 

6 minutes ago, Strange said:
6 minutes ago, Strange said:

Not necessarily. You haven't said what their relative velocity is. (You do know the difference between speed and velocity, don't you?)

I wrote that they have the same speed relative to Earth.

In Dutch we translate 'speed' and 'velocity' the same. My native language is Dutch.

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

Whatever you measure is relative, other observers will disagree. So, why are you generalising this to all possible observers?

Because we know what other observers will see. (And we also know that it will be pretty much exactly the same as what we see.)

We know this because we have a theory that tells us what they will see. This theory is very well tested.

I'm afraid that a well-tested scientific theory trumps ignorant assertions. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

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

Because we know what other observers will see. (And we also know that it will be pretty much exactly the same as what we see.)

We know this because we have a theory that tells us what they will see. This theory is very well tested.

I'm afraid that a well-tested scientific theory trumps ignorant assertions. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

ok, what will an observer see near a black hole? What's the universe to a photon? (no space, nor time)

These are extreme examples to show that we live in a universe where observers do not have 'pretty much exactly' the same idea about space and time.

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

ok, what will an observer see near a black hole?

It depends on the mass of the black hole and how far they are from it. But they will still see evidence for the expansion of space. (I will let you work out what the difference would be, seeing as claim you are not ignorant of the details of GR.)

7 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

What's the universe to a photon? (no space, nor time)

Nonsense.

7 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

These are extreme examples to show that we live in a universe where observers do not have the 'pretty much exactly' the same idea about space and time.

As you will know from being such a great expert on relativity, nearly all observers do not exist near black holes and so the difference they observe is going to be so small it makes no difference.

But even if we say there is someone near a black hole making measurements, we know exactly how to convert between their measurements and ours and so we can all agree on the rate of expansion of space (in the units and frame of reference we each choose to use).

I'm sorry, but your denials of the expansion of space are contradicted by evidence.

Edited by Strange
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.