Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

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

There are no absolute statements about space (expanding or otherwise).

The only invariants (which is what I think you mean by "absolute") are space-time intervals. They are the same for all observers. 

14 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

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?

Because they are not absolute statements. They are made from our frame of reference. If you insist on the terminology, they are relative statements.

15 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Isn't that a contradiction?

No. The only "contradiction" is between your beliefs and reality.

But I doubt you will suddenly understand that.

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'). 

Quote

Because they are not absolute statements. They are made from our frame of reference. If you insist on the terminology, they are relative statements.

so, finally, you admit that these statements are relative. That's my point. Thank you.

Conclusion: no absolute statements (= non-relative) age and amount of expanded space possible.

Ergo: big bangtheory cannot be true. Because the Big Bangtheory postulates an absolute (not relative) timescale and amount of expanded space on every moment in time.

 

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

so, finally, you admit that these statements are relative. That's my point. Thank you.

I have never denied it.

Your insistence that "because it is based on relativity we can't know anything" is idiotic.

It is obviously nonsense. We use the same principles of relativity (relative velocity, different gravitational potential) for GPS. That works very accurately.

On the other hand, you insist we can't apply the same science on large scales because you don't like the results. That is irrational.

27 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Conclusion: no absolute statements (= non-relative) age and amount of expanded space possible.

No one is making absolute statements. (As you have been told repeatedly.)

Constantly repeating the same straw man argument is boring and dishonest.

27 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Because the Big Bangtheory postulates an absolute (not relative) timescale and amount of expanded space on every moment in time.

NO IT DOESN'T.

Please stop lying.

Edited by Strange
clarity and grammar
Link to post
Share on other sites

I will tell you also my idea about consciousness and 4D-spacetime.

We can measure distance (space) and we can measure time (clocks). But we have to deduce 4D-spacetime based on that. We can't see the 4-dimensional manifold, called spacetime. We can only mathematisize spacetime.

Therefore, spacetime is only mathematical to us. What we observe is 3D-space and what we measure is time. We deduce spacetime, spacetime-intervals etc. 

Why,

Because we, minds, have only acces to the actual moment.

While spacetime = events from past, present and future together in a 4D-manifold (Einstein, Minkowski)

The interaction of a mind (an observer) with this manifold (only mathematical object, but very real) results in the experience of time. The experience of the unfolding of the events moment by moment.

Let me tell you the difference between a measuring device and a conscious mind.

A scientific experiment is actually a sequence of events in spacetime, existing together. The beginning of the experiment, the middle and the end of the experiment already exist together in spacetime. Only a conscious observer, a scientist, can experience the unfolding of the experiment moment by moment through time.

That's the role of consciousness. A measuring device cannot experience time (the unfolding of the events moment by moment).

The measuring device itself is actually existing in past, present and future simultaniously. Only a mind can observe the measuring device measuring moment by moment. A measuring device can't.

 

 

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

ok, I'm not finished yet.

Sigh.

2 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Only a mind can observe the measuring device measuring moment by moment. A measuring device can't.

Wow.

Does this drivel mean that you concede that you have no arguments against GR anymore? 

If all you have is this metaphysical mumbo-jumbo, then I will happily leave you to it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Einstein said it already and Minkowski too: in reality, there is 4D-spacetime.

A mind can only experience 3D space. 

or can you experience 4D spacetime, Strange? Tell me if you can.

That's logical and in line with evidence and based on the postulates of relativity. 

Minds do only have access to the actual moment. 

Or do you see the past, Strange? Do you observe the manifold 4D-spacetime? Or do you need math for that?

A measuring device is a 4D-object existing in past, present and maybe future (Minkowski, Einstein).

What do you want from me on this forum? That I can deliver a nobel prize in physics? Or I will be banned when I cannot deliver the next breakthrough in science?

People, it's directly logically derived from the ideas of Einstein and Minkowski.

They postulated that reality in itself is 4D spacetime.

But conscious minds are not capable of observing this 4D-manifold. 

We do experience 3D-space and can measure time with clocks.

Therefore (logical conclusion): minds have only acces tot the actual moment.

A measuring device cannot experience time. It is a 4D-object, existing in  past, present and maybe also future.

A measuring device measuring something is series of events existing together in spacetime in past, present and future.

But a mind has access to the actual moment. Only a mind has access tot the actual moment;

Therefore, the interaction between a mind and 4D-spacetime = an observable universe.

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

Einstein said it already and Minkowski too: actually there is 4D-spacetime.

A mind can only experience 3D space. 

That's logical and in line with evidence and based on the postulates of relativity. 

And boring.

Quote

What do you want more on this forum? That I can deliver a nobel prize in physics?

No. No one expects that. It would be silly. 

I think all we want is:

  • Don't resort to logical fallacies.
  • When you have the facts explained to you, don't keep repeating the same lies.
  • If you want to show that there is something wrong with the mathematics of GR, then you have to use mathematics.
  • If you want to overthrow a scientific theory, you need evidence not just beliefs and assertions.
  • Don't come to a science forum and pretend that your beliefs have the same weight as scientific evidence.
  • In short, stick to science. This is, after all, a science forum.

Simple as that, really. (Read the rules you agreed to when you joined, if you are still unsure.)

Finally, no one really cares that you don't like the Big Bang theory. I'm sure there are lots of other people who people who also don't understand it. They (and you) are welcome to come here and ask questions in order to learn. But just repeatedly shouting your beliefs at us is not welcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that 'minds' and 'consciousness' are not part of science. 

But it is a crucial part of reality. Only our minds have access to the actual moment.

4D-spacetime is past, present and maybe future together in a manifold.

Only through minds we can capture the events moment by moment in the actualy moment. But that's not how the events exist outthere in 4D-spacetime. All events exist together from past, present and maybe future. We only can experience the events moment by moment. Thanks to ... consciousness. 

The interaction between consciousness and 4D-spacetime results in an observable universe.

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

so, finally, you admit that these statements are relative. That's my point. Thank you.

People have already stipulated this. It doesn't matter.

3 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

Conclusion: no absolute statements (= non-relative) age and amount of expanded space possible.

Ergo: big bangtheory cannot be true. Because the Big Bangtheory postulates an absolute (not relative) timescale and amount of expanded space on every moment in time.

 

There's a huge gap between your conclusion and your second conclusion. Repeating it doesn't change anything.

The big bang theory does not postulate an absolute time scale. Ergo, your claim is bollocks.

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

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.

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.

 

You obviously are not aware that observing redshift is not the only piece of evidence of expansion of the universe.

 The entire thermodynamics history including BB nucleosynthesis which formed the CMB itself is also very strong pieces of evidence.

 Its always amazing just how many posters ignore these pieces. Typically everyone that has trouble with understanding relativity and assume they can prove it wrong with looking strictly at redshift.

 

If you don't disagree with the math then it may be a good idea to make sure you properly understand it before making all the incorrect statements you have the past 8 pages.

None of the math agrees with any statement you have made thus far.

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

I will tell you also my idea about consciousness and 4D-spacetime.

!

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.

 
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.