Block universe vs two senses of now.

[Strange]

 

Well wait. If you can account for certain effect using just one, then why bother with the other?

 

You can only account for differences due to relative speed using special relativity. You can account for everything (e.g. gravity) using general relativity but it is much more complex. So, if difference in gravity are not significant, then it is much, much easier to use special relativity.

 

 

I don't know that the pulsar ticks would arrive at different frequencies, if neither the satelitte or the receiver were moving toward or away from the pulsar.

 

The satellite and the receiver on the ground would receive them at different frequencies because they are at different heights (different gravity).

[tar]

Strange,

 

But does that add up?

 

Let's say the pulsar pulses 7 times a second, 420 times a minute, 25,200 times an hour, 604,800 times a day, 220,903,200 times a year.

 

We send up a satellite and have it orbit the Earth in such a way as its orbit alway is in view of the pulsar. We have it traveling at relativistic speeds, at very low altitude so that special relativity should slow its clock and general relativity will not speed it up too much, so that mostly special relativity effects would be expected.

 

We send the satelitte up one day and retreive it 365 and 1/4 days later. How could it possibly count anything other than 220,903,200 pulsar pulses? That is how many pulses there were to count in that time. The pulsar clock was ticking at the frequency of 220,903,200 per year. The distance between the wave fronts of each succeeding pulse was 2,657.14285 miles. The number of pulses and the distance between the wavefronts would have happened had the satellite been launched or not, and the satellite would count exactly 220,903,200 pulses even if it thought it had only aged 7 months.

 

So which part of time dilated? Which part of distance contracted? The satellite never left the Earth's now, it stayed within the half million miles that we can consider being within the same moment. It had to have experienced the rest of the universe in approximately the same manner as we did. That is it at least has no way to count more or less pulses of the quasar as we did at the surface.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited August 20, 2015 by tar

[Strange]

But does that add up?

 

Of course.

 

We have it traveling at relativistic speeds, at very low altitude so that special relativity should slow its clock and general relativity will not speed it up too much, so that mostly special relativity effects would be expected.

 

I was talking about the difference due to gravity. But there will be a difference due to velocity as well.

 

We send the satelitte up one day and retreive it 365 and 1/4 days later. How could it possibly count anything other than 220,903,200 pulsar pulses? That is how many pulses there were to count in that time.

 

In that time on Earth (for the "stationary" observer). The satellite experienced less time and so will count fewer pulses.

[tar]

Well if that is your claim, then I would suggest that claim is trivally falsiable.

 

 

All you would have to do is count the pular's pulses from a lab, and send someone out to count the pulses from a moving vehical, have them come home and report the count. There is no possible reason the count could be different.

Unless they went over a bump and they made two tick marks when they meant to make one.

Additionally, if the pulsar we are using is 500 lys away, according to my logic, there must be 110,451,600,000 wavefronts, currently spaceborne, on their way here, from the pulsar. If the pulsar is currently emitting pulse number 10,000,000,000,000 we are currently recieving pulse number 9,889,548,400,000. Wavefront of pulse 9,889,548,400,001 is currently spaceborne, only 26,571.428 miles from Earth ( i divided 186,00 (instead of 186,000)) by 7 before and lost a place.) And the 9,999,999,999,999th pulse is also currently on its way, currently 26,571.428 miles from the pulsar.

 

Its reality. Its geometery. Its common sense and required by logic to be the case, that the universe is so arranged. We cannot recieve a pulse from the pulsar that is 500 lys away, unless the next pulse we recieve is one it released 500 years ago...and it has to be the case that all the pulses that we will see in the next 500 years, are already spaceborne.

 

check is in the mail

Edited August 20, 2015 by tar

[Strange]

Your wilful ignorance is very tedious: "relativity must be wrong because I don't understand it".

 

As you appear to be happier to be left ignorant, I will leave you to it.

[david345]

Wrong again. "The study of the PSR B1913+16 binary pulsar also led to the first accurate determination of neutron star masses, using relativistic timing effects.[2] When the two bodies are in close proximity, the gravitational field is stronger, the passage of time is slowed – and the time between pulses (or ticks) is lengthened. Then as the pulsar clock travels more slowly through the weakest part of the field it regains time."

I am sure you will respond with more lies and babbling nonsense. Don't bother. You are only embarrassing yourself. You have made it clear you have no problem telling intentional lies with the purpose of misleading others about science. I don't know what your motivation is. I don't care. Nobody is taking your lies seriously. Why bother?

[MigL]

Wow I didn't realize you two were that old, Tar and Strange !

( actually I'm less than a decade younger )

You two old farts wanna start acting your ages ?

( I say 'old farts' with the greatest respect )

 

But seriously, Tar, you've admitted that you don't understand GR, why not ask for explanations and information from people like Strange or David345, who seem to have a grasp of GR, instead of always presenting your ( very verbose ) incorrect, and constantly changing theories, when they tell you your ideas are wrong ?

 

I think back in post #92, David345 made the comment that a universal now has a problem because it would have to 'move through time'. I don't think its quite that simple.

If we consider 2dimensional space, then time would add a third dimension, and we could easily put this 'block' of space-time in a slicer, and make a stack of 2dimensional surfaces, or foliations. If I remember correctly, these foliations are globally hyperbolic, to satisfy the time evolution conditions of these space-like slices or Cauchy surfaces. Unfortunately the problem is that globally hyperbolic foliations can only map locally, not globally. In effect there is no global 'now', only local approximations.

 

( of course AJB may now slap me upside the head and tell me I'm totally wrong )

Edited August 21, 2015 by MigL

[tar]

MigL,

 

That's OK both Strange and I are done.

 

I offered my insight. If its incorrect and unusefull well then its incorrect and unuseful.

 

Regards, TAR

[david345]

Wow I didn't realize you two were that old, Tar and Strange !

( actually I'm less than a decade younger )

You two old farts wanna start acting your ages ?

( I say 'old farts' with the greatest respect )

 

But seriously, Tar, you've admitted that you don't understand GR, why not ask for explanations and information from people like Strange or David345, who seem to have a grasp of GR, instead of always presenting your ( very verbose ) incorrect, and constantly changing theories, when they tell you your ideas are wrong ?

 

I think back in post #92, David345 made the comment that a universal now has a problem because it would have to 'move through time'. I don't think its quite that simple.

If we consider 2dimensional space, then time would add a third dimension, and we could easily put this 'block' of space-time in a slicer, and make a stack of 2dimensional surfaces, or foliations. If I remember correctly, these foliations are globally hyperbolic, to satisfy the time evolution conditions of these space-like slices or Cauchy surfaces. Unfortunately the problem is that globally hyperbolic foliations can only map locally, not globally. In effect there is no global 'now', only local approximations.

 

( of course AJB may now slap me upside the head and tell me I'm totally wrong )

I actually said a flowing universal now would have to move or flow through time. The time you are referring to is often called cosmic time. I discussed it in post 40 and later in this thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/88836-is-there-a-common-moment-of-now-throughout-the-universe/ Edited August 21, 2015 by david345

[tar]

MigL,

 

Ok, maybe not quite done. Read david345's linked thread, and noticed that my consideration is commonly called cosmic time, and refers to the observation of a fundamental observer.

 

While the "universal now" that is known not to exist, is an extension of the local now and similtaneity, that is known to not be achievable, as that different observers cannot agree on such a now.

 

So I would like to mention that the things I have said about a universal now are consistent with the concept of a cosmic time that is currently existent where all points in space are right now of equal density, having already experienced inflation, allowed the transmittal of photons, and evolved as locations of matter and energy, for 13.8 (or 13.9) billion years. As such, my statements about there being two senses of now, are far from nonsense, but instead are already concieved and explored notions of reality already built into the equations of space time.

 

With this understanding, I think it entirely proper to consider the wavelengths of light, emitted by a distant star, ALL the wavelengths, from the cosmic moment they were emitted, as existing, for real in the cosmic moment, in the space between here and there, and cooincidently in the space passed Earth, on their way to some observer in the opposite direction as the star is from Earth. The exact nature of this foliation, since it contains ALL of the current cosmic universe, is difficult to picture. I would suggest though that it is not a slice of a static pie. The rest of the pie has not happened yet. It is at best the fresh surface of a cosmic pie, even if that surface be 4 dimensional. The rest of the pie has not yet, in the cosmic time sense, been baked.

 

As to the binary pulsar. It may well provide evidence that gravity effects electromagnetic fields, or that gravity waves transmit energy away from the system, but the binary pulsar was not the pulsar I was considering using as a standard with which to judge the equal passage of time from both the perspective of the satelitte and from the perspective of the reciever, who both, regardless of their depth in a gravitational field, would have to see the same "cosmic" ticks, as they arrived in the Earth's area. In fact the binary pulsar may even be a better candidate for syncing up the receiver and the satellite, as there is a period dictated by the spin of the pulsar, and a period dicated by the dance of the pulsar around its neutron star partner. This "timing" is cosmic in nature, as it will be witnessed in the identical proportions and count from either the reciever or the satelitte. Whether this proves that time dilates or that time does not dilate is inconsequencial. In either case, both satelitte and reciever can go by the same consistent clock. Any determinations made, using this clock will be consistent with the determinations made on the next tick.

 

Regards, TAR

consistent if both the reciever and the satellite are aware that the two components of the binary pulsar are spiraling in toward each other and the periods are changing appropriately

Edited August 21, 2015 by tar

[MigL]

I apologize if I mis-represented what you said, David.

But did you have to go and give him another concept that he doesn't understand, and he's going to run with for another 5 pages ?

 

The concept of 'cosmic time' applies to a 'fundamental observer'. It doesn't apply to you or me, Tar; It would only apply to another 'concept', like God. It is a useful concept for our understanding of the universe's evolution, but we can't interact in that 'now'.

It is like imaginary numbers such as i, a concept which, although very useful, has no physical significance to you or me, as we can't interact with it.

[tar]

MigL,

 

That has been my point, all along. david234 did not just give me the concept.

 

It is the other sense of now that we cannot interact with, that will absolutely effect us in a moment, that we can "know" but cannot touch or see, that is absolutely real, as in not being imaginary. Like the family in Nepal, that has never been in the news, and you and I have never seen a picture of. They are doing something right now, in the cosmic sense, that we cannot interact with, we can not see it, nor affect it. We are not there. By the time we hear about it, its already done. But it absolutely happened and they are doing something, right now, in the cosmic sense, that may effect us, and become part of our here and now sense of now, later.

 

Regards, TAR

"interact with" is a relative term. We can have a penpal in Nepal. We can have a pen pal on Proxima Centauri. It is possible to have a pen pal with somebody stationed 150 lys from here, but you would have to "do it" as a family or an organization and do it with a long lived entity at the other end. But inorder to have a penpal, you have to assume they exist now, in the cosmic sense, even though they are not in the room with you, or on the phone with you, or otherwise within a moment of you.

The other day, I heard they found a prayer book from a serviceman that died in the Pacific and they gave it to his wife. It was a complete surprise to her.

 

My daughters received money from my Mom for several years after she died (with the help of my sister) on their birthdays, in birthday cards, signed by my mother's ailing hand. The whole transaction was absolutely real, actually did happen. "interact with" is a relative term

Edited August 22, 2015 by tar