Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Ask a photon: no expansion of the universe. (a photon is an object with absolute properties for space and time (speed: distance/time) and can give you absolute information (not relative) about the universe in itself, without observers. The spatial and timeproperties of the universe in itself are undefinable. 

'expanding space' and 'x billion years old' are always relativistic observer's statements. It tells us nothing about the universe in itself without observers.

To say that observers have 'pretty much exactly the same idea' about the age/expansion of the universe in itself is not scientific.

Or they have exactly the same idea or they don't. 'pretty much exactly the same idea' is not good enough to make generalised statements about the universe.

'pretty much exaclty the same idea about the expanding universe' means: they have different ideas. And that makes a big difference for in what kind of universe we live.

 

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'). 

3 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

a photon is an object with absolute properties for space and time (speed: distance/time)

No it isn't. As you would know if you weren't so stubbornly immune to learning anything about relativity.

4 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

'expanding space' and 'x billion years old' are always relativistic observer's statements. It tells us nothing about the universe in itself without observers.

They are relative to a frame of reference. "Observers" have nothing to do with it. The universe was expanding for 14 billion years before we started observing it.

5 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

'pretty much exactly the same idea' is not good enough to make generalised statements about the universe.

Please quantify this. Please use the mathematics of GR to quantify how large the difference needs to be before it becomes significant.

Oh, that's right. You can't. So please stop posting baseless assertions. This is a science forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

No it isn't. As you would know if you weren't so stubbornly immune to learning anything about relativity.

I learned that light has the same value (speed= space/time) for every observer. Only the speed of light is absolute. 

So, if you want to know some absolute (non-relative) information about the universe, you must investigate  massless objects travelling at the speed of light. They will give you information (as an absolute referenceframe) for the absolute nature of the universe. (absolute statement = not relative, observer-dependent)

 

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

Please quantify this. Please use the mathematics of GR to quantify how large the difference needs to be before it becomes significant.

The fact that there is a difference, no matter how small, makes a significant difference for the kind of universe we live in.

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

I learned that light has the same value (speed= space/time) for every observer.

Well done.

14 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

So, if you want to know some absolute (non-relative) information about the universe, you must investigate  massless objects travelling at the speed of light. They will give you information (as an absolute referenceframe) for the absolute nature of the universe. (absolute statement = not relative, observer-dependent)

Nope. You cannot use light as a reference frame. 

14 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

The fact that there is a difference, no matter how small, makes a significant difference for the kind of universe we live in.

Stop repeating this stupid argument. It is obviously wrong. I can only assume you don't know what "significant" means. Why doesn't that surprise me?

Let's take a really extreme difference where another observer would say that the age of universe is 1 million years less than we measure. Is this significant? Of course not, because the error in the measurement is about 6 million yers and so the difference is less than the error bounds.

Therefore there is no difference. That is how science works. 

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

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

You have thus far refused to quantify this prediction. The fact that they will disagree is irrelevant of the disagreement is not the same size as the measurement. The universe is roughly 14 billion years old. If the relativistic effects cause a disagreement of 100 years, that answer of 14 billion years is not the result of some relativistic effect. And there is no difference in the answers, to within the level of precision of the measurements.

13 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

 The fact that there is a difference, no matter how small, makes a significant difference for the kind of universe we live in.

This is what you need to show, rather than assert. 

34 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

 To say that observers have 'pretty much exactly the same idea' about the age/expansion of the universe in itself is not scientific.

I'm pretty sure that you are not the arbiter of what is and is not scientific.

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

 ...is 1 million years less than we measure. Is this significant? Of course not....

One million years not significant? 

Again: it's about the principle of relativity: you can not make absolute statements about time and space. Even when the difference is 'small'.

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

One million years not significant? 

So you don't know what the word "significant" means. Thanks for confirming that.

Quote

Again: it's about the principle of relativity: you can not make absolute statements about time and space. Even when the difference is 'small'.

No one is making absolute statements. (Apart from you, with your absolute nonsense.)

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

Nope. You cannot use light as a reference frame. 

By convention. I'm a philosopher and a freethinker. I interprete an object with absolute values for speed as an object that allows me to make some absolute statements about time and space. 

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

By convention. I'm a philosopher and a freethinker. I interprete an object with absolute values for speed as an object that allows me to make some absolute statements about time and space. 

Someone defined a freethinker as someone who is wrong but still able to be smug about it.

And you are not a philosopher; that requires critical thinking and the ability to learn.

But feel free to try using the speed of light as a reference frame. How are you going to handle the division by zero? Does "freethinking" get you around that little problem?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The devision by zero in mathematics is interpreted as: 'undefined'.

 

The math tells you that the time and spatial properties of the universe in itself are undefinable. Every statement about age and an amount of expansion of space is an observers' statement and relative by nature.

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

The devision by zero in mathematics is interprete as: undefined.

Which is why you cannot use light as a frame of reference: it is undefined. Sigh. 

1 minute ago, Maartenn100 said:

The math tells you that the time and spaties properties of the universe in itself are undefinable.

Nonsense.

1 minute ago, Maartenn100 said:

Every statement about age and an amount of expansion is an observer's statement and relative by nature.

Yes. Boring.

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

 

Nonsense.

Why don't you just follow the math? Undefined is undefined. Period. Undefinable spatial and time properties for the universe in itself possibly, using light as an absolute frame of reference. Just follow the math.

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

Why don't you just follow the math? Undefined is undefined. Period. Undefinable spatial and time properties for the universe in itself possibly, using light as an absolute frame of reference. 

That is why you cannot use light as a frame of reference. What is wrong with you?

Quote

Just follow the math.

Then why not show us the math you want us to follow.

I understand the maths, that is why I know you are wrong.

You don't understand the maths (as you are happy/proud to admit) which is why, I suppose, you are posting so much incoherent gibberish.

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

Why don't you just follow the math? Undefined is undefined. Period. Undefinable spatial and time properties for the universe in itself possibly, using light as an absolute frame of reference. Just follow the math.

The maths does not allow observation from c....it's results are infinities and zeros. No time, no distance for a photon, and infinite speeds necessary for a massive object. It's just meaningless.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a matter of math or physics. This is a matter of interpreting the already existing mathematics and physics.

In my interpretation, light is the ultimate referenceframe. You can make absolute (=not relative) statements about the universe, using light as a reference frame. 

That's an interpretation. In physics scientists say that this is an invalid frame of reference.

No, this frame of reference allows us to make absolute statements about the universe in itself. Statements which are not relative. 

This is a matter of interpretation, not of math or physics.

Ask yourself these question: 

Are you not surprised that when a photon reaches your eye, after travelling billions of years, that it hasn't aged a second?

What's the age of the universe to a photon? An object with absolute values (non-relative)? 

This object will allow you to make some absolute statements about the universe in itself, observer-independent. 

 

 

 

An observer with mass, can't tell you the exact time, because its mass will curve spacetime.

An observer with relative speed, can't tell you the exact time, because observers with another speed will disagree.

Only a massless observer with absolute speed, relative to everyone and everything can tell you something about the absolute time- and spaceproperties of the universe in itself, observer-independent.

 

 

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

This is not a matter of math or physics.

You just said we should follow the math. 

When challenged to show some simple arithmetic you panic and pretend it has nothing to do with maths.

2 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

In my interpretation, light is the ultimate referenceframe.

Your "interpretation" is wrong. It is a fairy tale with no connection to any maths or physics. Therefore it doesn't apply to the real world. 

2 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

You can make absolute (=not relative) statements about the universe, using light as a reference frame. 

No you can't. Stop lying.

3 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

This is a matter of interpretation, not of math or physics.

Dividing by zero is a problem of maths not "interpretation".

4 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

This object will allow you to make some absolute statements about the universe in itself, observer-independent. 

If that were true, you would be able to show us the maths (that you want us to follow). You can say exactly nothing about anything using the frame of reference of a photon because there is no such thing.

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

One million years not significant? 

Again: it's about the principle of relativity: you can not make absolute statements about time and space. Even when the difference is 'small'.

When your measurement is 10,000 times bigger and you don't have the experimental precision to get to that level, no, it's not.

1 hour ago, Maartenn100 said:

Why don't you just follow the math? Undefined is undefined. Period. Undefinable spatial and time properties for the universe in itself possibly, using light as an absolute frame of reference. Just follow the math.

You first. We've asked for the math and you have declined.

37 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

This is not a matter of math or physics. This is a matter of interpreting the already existing mathematics and physics.

In my interpretation, light is the ultimate referenceframe. You can make absolute (=not relative) statements about the universe, using light as a reference frame. 

That's an interpretation. In physics scientists say that this is an invalid frame of reference.

And for good reason. How do you transform the physics equations that work in inertial frames into this photon frame, and back out again?

37 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

No, this frame of reference allows us to make absolute statements about the universe in itself. Statements which are not relative. 

Let's see the math. Only math can demonstrate this.

37 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

This is a matter of interpretation, not of math or physics.

Ask yourself these question: 

Are you not surprised that when a photon reaches your eye, after travelling billions of years, that it hasn't aged a second?

How would a photon "age"?

37 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

 An observer with mass, can't tell you the exact time, because its mass will curve spacetime.

An observer with relative speed, can't tell you the exact time, because observers with another speed will disagree.

Only a massless observer with absolute speed, relative to everyone and everything can tell you something about the absolute time- and spaceproperties of the universe in itself, observer-independent.

Are two photons moving in opposite directions in the same frame of reference?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You ask me for the math. I tell you to use the math of special theory of relativity using light as reference frame. 

A photon will tell you that it is invalid to make absolute statements about time and spatial properties of the universe in itself. Invalid means no absolute statements about time and space possible.

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

You ask me for the math. I tell you to use the math of special theory of relativity using light as reference frame. 

And I tell you (because you don't now) that there is no such math. You cannot do that.

35 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

A photon will tell you that it is invalid to make absolute statements about time and spatial properties of the universe in itself. Invalid means no absolute statements about time and space possible....

... from the frame of reference of a photon, because there is no such thing.

However, we can make measurements from our frame of reference. And that is what we do. And that tells us about the expansion of space. The fact you refuse to believe this is irrelevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I interprete the mathematical fact that light (absolute object) is been seen as an invalid referenceframe, that it is forbidden by relativity to make absolute statements for time and space when you talk about the universe in itself.

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

I interprete the mathematical fact that light (absolute object) is been seen as an invalid referenceframe, that it is forbidden by relativity to make absolute statements for time and space when you talk about the universe in itself.

That is like saying that the fact you can't divide by zero means that you can't use mathematics to describe the real world. Only an idiot would say that. Don't be that idiot.

Just use the maths that doesn't involve dividing by zero and you can use the mathematics of GR to describe the universe. Simple. (Well, not exactly simple. But possible.)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do not think logically.  Why light is an invalid reference frame, do you think? Because it would be able to make absolute statements for time and space. The math tells us that: such absolute statements for time and space are invalid in the universe we live in. Just follow the math. And don:t call me an idiot, because I have another opinion.

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

You do not think logically. 

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Quote

Why light is an invalid reference frame, do you think? 

Because it requires you to divide by zero. As you would know if you were capable of doing the simple arithmetic required.

19 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Because it would be able to make absolute statements for time and space.

No. You cannot make absolute statements about time and space

Also, because it would require you to divide by zero. As you would know if you were capable of doing the simple arithmetic required.

20 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

The math tells us that: such absolute statements for time and space are invalid in the universe we live in.

Correct.

20 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Just follow the math.

Go on then: show us the math that we should follow.

Because when I follow the math of special relativity it proves that you are talking bollocks.

If you were capable of simple arithmetic, you would be able to see this for yourself.

21 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

And don:t call me an idiot, because I have another opinion.

I didn't call you an idiot. I asked you NOT to be an idiot. But you seem determined to ignore my request.

I think it is amazing that someone who cannot even do simple arithmetic insists that general relativity is wrong. 

That isn't having another opinion. It is being wrong.

BTW. I don't have anything much better to do so I am quite happy to keep pointing out your errors and fallacies until the mods close the thread. (You should start making sense soon, if you want to to avoid that.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand you. You say exaclty the same thing: we can't make absolute statements for time and space for the universe. That's exactly what I'm trying to say here the whole time.

But on the other hand, you accept absolute statements about an expanding universe.

Why do you accept a universe with a certain age and a certain amount of expanded space on the one hand, while you admit on the other hand that we cannot make absolute statements about the timeproperties and spaceproperties of the universe?

Isn't that a contradiction?

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.