Cosmology needs radical transformation

[niebieskieucho]

... because is based on false hypotheses. The false hypotheses gave birth to false theories. Contemporary Cosmology is abundant in myths that became rooted over 100 years ago and is unable to perform a baby's step forward. All in all, so called Relativity should be moved to the landfill of science without any further delay in order to make giant leap in science. At the same time I'd like to stress that I am not slighting scientists, on the contrary, they are owed respect in spite of their mistakes, however criticisms should always be severe and mistakes openly discussed. Relativity is treated as holy cow. It resembles a religion or party. Those who don't agree with Relativity are treated as iconoclasts and are ignored. I'd like to stress strongly, that Relativity is based on hypotheses and theories which cannot be considered as laws of physics as long as they remain hypotheses and theories. Let's start from the two major myths connected with time, i.e. alleged relativity and its dilation. As scientists cannot comprehend what time is, they have carried out costly experiments and squandered money for confirmation of the alleged dilation of time (e.g. experiment with caesium clocks). The abstract idea “time” is the basic one and there is no possibility to define it not to adducing it. That means we can define time by means of synonyms only. I am setting aside its colloquial and convenient ambiguities. What, therefore, time is? According to my definition:

Time is the motion of anything in relation to anything. Also: Time is the motion of any form of matter in relation to any form of matter. As you can see, you cannot slow down its motion, because time is not a body and spontaneously doesn't exist. Any questions?

 

Andrzej Lechowski

[Mike C]

... because is based on false hypotheses. The false hypotheses gave birth to false theories. Contemporary Cosmology is abundant in myths that became rooted over 100 years ago and is unable to perform a baby's step forward. All in all, so called Relativity should be moved to the landfill of science without any further delay in order to make giant leap in science. At the same time I'd like to stress that I am not slighting scientists, on the contrary, they are owed respect in spite of their mistakes, however criticisms should always be severe and mistakes openly discussed. Relativity is treated as holy cow. It resembles a religion or party. Those who don't agree with Relativity are treated as iconoclasts and are ignored. I'd like to stress strongly, that Relativity is based on hypotheses and theories which cannot be considered as laws of physics as long as they remain hypotheses and theories. Let's start from the two major myths connected with time, i.e. alleged relativity and its dilation. As scientists cannot comprehend what time is, they have carried out costly experiments and squandered money for confirmation of the alleged dilation of time (e.g. experiment with caesium clocks). The abstract idea “time” is the basic one and there is no possibility to define it not to adducing it. That means we can define time by means of synonyms only. I am setting aside its colloquial and convenient ambiguities. What, therefore, time is? According to my definition:

Time is the motion of anything in relation to anything. Also: Time is the motion of any form of matter in relation to any form of matter. As you can see, you cannot slow down its motion, because time is not a body and spontaneously doesn't exist. Any questions?

 

Andrzej Lechowski

 

I couldn't agree with you more.

Time is energy as defined by 'motion'. It is also applicable to 'change' that is also defined by 'slow' motion/change such as 'plant' growrh.

 

I see you may be a 'disciple' of Copernicus. I am. I consider him to be the 'father' of modern science.

 

What we need is another revolution in todays science to conform to the current laws of physics and its related components.

 

Mike C

[niebieskieucho]

I couldn't agree with you more.

Time is energy as defined by 'motion'. It is also applicable to 'change' that is also defined by 'slow' motion/change such as 'plant' growrh.

 

I see you may be a 'disciple' of Copernicus. I am. I consider him to be the 'father' of modern science.

 

What we need is another revolution in todays science to conform to the current laws of physics and its related components.

 

Mike C

 

You are wrong. Time has nothing common with energy. To convince you about it, I propose to carry out the following thought experiment. Let's admit that you have such a might to freeze the universe and stop all motion. Next you would like to measure time between any two bodies. Could you do it? Of course not, because lack of motion means lack of time - and time is motion. Maybe you don't believe me. Let's go farther. Time is measured with motion. Do you agree? And as it is the same, you measure motion with time. Is it clear? Now, find me another measure of time that doesn't relate to motion, could you?

Matter's attribute is time, because matter is in constant motion. On the contrary, space is coupled with energy, but not with time. The alleged space-time doesn't exist, similarly as doesn't exist matter-time. So the consecutive myth is space-time. You cannot find space-time in nature. Space has only three dimensions and no one more nor less. In mathematics you can of course create 11 dimensional spaces that are impossible to find in nature.

[sanctus]

measure of time without motion? It's enough to not look at what you don't want to see: take the decay of an atom if you ignore the mouvement of emission you have something that changes without mouvement...

 

Anyway could you elaborate a bit more on your definition of time? Because it seems to me to have some possible inconsistencies so far...

[niebieskieucho]

measure of time without motion? It's enough to not look at what you don't want to see: take the decay of an atom if you ignore the mouvement of emission you have something that changes without mouvement...

 

Anyway could you elaborate a bit more on your definition of time? Because it seems to me to have some possible inconsistencies so far...

 

All right. Time = motion, but:

Time spontaneously does not exist. If you want to talk about time there must be something in motion in relation to anything. It's obvious that a body in motion must have some energy, but it's necessary to precise motion of a body you are taking into consideration. Every form of matter has its energy. Let it be a figurine on the bedside table. It contains energy of its constructive material, but what can you say about its time. Well, generally we can say its time = 0, as there is no motion of the figurine. In fact such motion exists in its constructive material - can be caused for instance by change of temperature or pressure, oxidation, humidity not to mention motion of its particles of the material, but in practice we are not interested in measurements of such micro motions. As it appears it is not sufficient to talk about time in connection with energy. Always must be indicated energy of something. Similarly if we talk about time it's necessary to indicate motion of something.

 

Now I'd like to mention the next myth connected with time. It's state of singularity of the universe. Such thing never existed, because nothing can exist without space, moreover, what force it was acting like a piston from all directions to compress all universal matter to such a microscopic germ. Mother of the material universe must be primordial, three dimensional, energetic space. The universe was created from nothing... almost.

There is no sense to talk about time in primordial energetic space, as there weren't any visible changes associated with space. Energy was probably in oscillating motion. Such motion neutralizes itself. In such space there was no possibility to distinguish any elements. Such a state could be named as “timelessness”.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

None deficiency of knowledge is able to switch off my brain.

[modest]

All in all, so called Relativity should be moved to the landfill of science without any further delay in order to make giant leap in science. Those who don't agree with Relativity are treated as iconoclasts and are ignored. I'd like to stress strongly, that Relativity is based on hypotheses and theories which cannot be considered as laws of physics as long as they remain hypotheses and theories. Let's start from the two major myths connected with time, i.e. alleged relativity and its dilation. As scientists cannot comprehend what time is, they have carried out costly experiments and squandered money for confirmation of the alleged dilation of time (e.g. experiment with caesium clocks). The abstract idea “time” is the basic one and there is no possibility to define it not to adducing it. That means we can define time by means of synonyms only. I am setting aside its colloquial and convenient ambiguities. What, therefore, time is? According to my definition:

Time is the motion of anything in relation to anything. Also: Time is the motion of any form of matter in relation to any form of matter. As you can see, you cannot slow down its motion, because time is not a body and spontaneously doesn't exist. Any questions?

 

Andrzej Lechowski

 

Andrzej, You will find discussion relevant to this theme in the following hypography threads:

 

General relativity is self-inconsistent

 

General relativity, will we learn otherwise?

 

TIME EXPLAINED (v2.1)

Is Newtonian Mechanics an advantage or a limitation in astrophysics?

I hope you find the framework that previous authors setup on this topic helpful with the discussion.

 

-modest

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

Time is a measure of communication.

 

With or without motion.

 

Lets assume the extreme. You are at the event horizon. Theoretically no motion as so to speak. Time for communication is infinite, because the EMR has been altered, that is the speed of light has been reduced to Zero and so communication time is infinity.

 

Time has nothing to do with any motion, it cannot be changed or altered.

 

If you change the speed of EMR, you are changing the time of communication only.

 

I think too many people whatch TV too much.

[freeztar]

Contemporary Cosmology is abundant in myths that became rooted over 100 years ago and is unable to perform a baby's step forward. All in all, so called Relativity should be moved to the landfill of science without any further delay in order to make giant leap in science.

 

What alternative do you propose?

[modest]

Lets assume the extreme. You are at the event horizon. Theoretically no motion as so to speak. Time for communication is infinite, because the EMR has been altered, that is the speed of light has been reduced to Zero and so communication time is infinity.

 

The speed of light (or EMR as you say) is never less than c. It cannot be reduced to zero. The property of electromagnetic radiation’s speed being constant has been theory since the time of Maxwell and was first experimentally demonstrated by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley (1) in 1887. Near a massive body, the speed of light is still c (2).

 

Also, I don’t think I fully understand what you are saying about the event horizon and time. I would say - I see no reason why a person falling through an event horizon would have any trouble reading his watch normally. Such a person could use his watch to accurately measure, for example, his pulse rate - which would no doubt be through the roof given the situation he’s put himself in. Nor can I find a law or theory saying relativistic experiments would not work on the black-hole side of a Schwarzschild radius. One example would be shining a flashlight or laser from this position. Our doomed astronaut could measure that light to be moving at c (although rather bent at this point) (3).

 

Time has nothing to do with any motion, it cannot be changed or altered.

 

Do you mean there is no physical situation where an observer’s experience of time is changed from his own perspective and inside his own reference frame? I’ll tip my hat to that. However, as I’m sure you know: relative time between two frames of reference certainly is variable with respect to motion. More precisely, with respect to relative speed, relative acceleration, or relative gravitational fields. This time dilation has been confirmed experimentally for both velocity:

 

"Variation of the Rate of Decay of Mesotrons with Momentum" Rossi, Bruno; Hall, David B. 1941

 

and gravity:

 

Pound-Rebka experiment

 

I hope I didn't misunderstand what you were saying. I just think a statement like

the speed of light has been reduced to Zero

needs probing.

 

I think too many people whatch TV too much.

 

Speaking of which, Heroes premiers tonight. Wait! Are you making fun of me? :cheer: :hihi:

 

-modest

[Tormod]

Any questions?

 

Which false hypotheses do you have in mind?

[niebieskieucho]

Hello All

 

>Time is a measure of communication.

 

>With or without motion.

 

The above sentences are contradictory. In the first one you are trying to define time by “communication”, but you will not escape motion. Using “communication” you apply synonym of “motion” too. So, while defining time there is no possibility to avoid synonyms.

 

>Lets assume the extreme. You are at the event horizon. Theoretically no >motion as so to speak. Time for communication is infinite, because the EMR >has been altered, that is the speed of light has been reduced to Zero and >so communication time is infinity.

 

So called event horizon has impact on velocity of bodies whereas time is the result of its velocity, as only body may stop, accelerate or slow down - never time.

 

>Time has nothing to do with any motion, it cannot be changed or altered.

 

>If you change the speed of EMR, you are changing the time of >communication only.

 

Time is motion and I maintain my definition of time. As I have earlier said, time spontaneously doesn't exist, so it's obvious no one can change it.

 

>I think too many people whatch TV too much.

 

Happily I have no problems in distinguishing what is rubbish and what is not on tv.

[niebieskieucho]

What alternative do you propose?

 

 

1) First of all to abandon scientific myths, to which belong:

- relativity of time

- relativity of space

- space-time

- dilation of time

- arrow of time

- state of singularity of the universe

 

2) I have already proposed among other things my idea of appearance of material part of the universe, its picture and evolution in my simple book (no details, as I don't want to treat forum as a tool of ad). I can submit a short description tomorrow or within couple of days.

 

3) Physics must make friends again with so called ether. I know about experiments that excluded it, but I it still cannot be considered as a proof. As long as science won't be able to reach subatomic structure of space, we must not exclude existence of ether.

 

4) Science must provide definition of magnetic field. In my opinion magnetic field belongs to matter. It is definitely not a property of space. Space is a landlord and magnetic field is its tenant. Scientists eagerly compressed the universe in such a microscopic big-bangy point, whereas should take into consideration forms of matter let's say 10^-70. I realize that there is some problem but there is no other way to reach matter of magnetic field. Consequently, mother of the material part of the universe is primordial, homogeneous, energetic, 3 dimensional space and not singularity from magician's hat.

 

5) According to my speculative calculations, diameter of the universe should be minimum 1.5 x 10^137 light years. I doubt if WIMPs exist. So, such an unimaginable volume of energetic space would be necessary to balance material part of the universe.

[niebieskieucho]

Which false hypotheses do you have in mind?

 

See my reply to Freeztar.

[niebieskieucho]

I omitted centimeters in my reply. Should be of course 10^-70 cm

[sanctus]

Can you elaborate more on why time is not related to energy? To me energy is generator of change in time in the same way that impulsion is the generator of translations...

 

N.B.: with generator I mean the ones from QM

[Boerseun]

Time being defined in terms of motion is erroneous.

 

Motion is defined as the spatial difference between the same object occupying space at point A at a specific time, and occupying point B at a later time. You are using time to define time. It's as good as me telling you that a meter is defined as being 100 centimeters. Ask me then what a centimeter is, and I'll tell you it's 100th of a meter. Its a circular argument, and a circular definition.

 

What might be possible though, is that spacetime is simply that: spacetime. And it has its own attributes and qualities, unique to "spacetime". We're attempting to reduce the qualities of spacetime to analogies of down-to-earth examples, which might simply be flat-out wrong. And if the incongruencies of "spacetime" and the properties of light, for that matter, doesn't fit into your day-to-day experience, well, then, so be it.

 

Take light, for instance. Everybody's up in arms about light, because it's neither a wave nor a particle, but both at the same time. Impossible. Look at the properties of a wave in a wavetank. Waves simply dont act like that! Look at particles. Particles surely don't act like that! Once again we let our chauvinisms show. Everything must fit into our little mind-box of how stuff works. I'm of the opinion that light is neither a wave nor a particle, but, quite simply, light. With all its quirks and qualities. And if scientific results of probing into the nature of light might yield unintuitive results, then so be it. That is the nature of light. The fact that we don't encounter regular stuff on a daily basis with the same properties, doesn't imply that light should act in any other way, however.

 

And in my mind, that's the nature of time, too. Time is time. And because relativity might be non-intuitive to you because of the definition of spacetime, and the fact that it might not fit into your world-view, I'm sorry. The results of experiments shore up relativity, and it might simply be that time, space and light are, well, time, space and light. With their own unique qualities and attributes.

 

I think trying to shoe-horn the properties of either of these entities into our narrow-minded experience of wavetanks and particulate properties, is naive to the extreme. Light is light, time is time and space is space. These three together interact, light follows space, telling us something of the properties of the space it travelled through. Space bends and influences time. Time stretches and influences the light travelling through space.

 

But it's not a little ripple travelling though a wave tank.

 

And if you want to discount relativity because you think its wrong, please go ahead. But if you see light as light, spacetime as spacetime, and you stand in awe as to the complexity and beauty of the whole mess, then you'll appreciate the results of the myriads of experiments vindicating old Albert.

[LaurieAG]

I think trying to shoe-horn the properties of either of these entities into our narrow-minded experience of wavetanks and particulate properties, is naive to the extreme. Light is light, time is time and space is space. These three together interact, light follows space, telling us something of the properties of the space it travelled through. Space bends and influences time. Time stretches and influences the light travelling through space.

 

But it's not a little ripple travelling though a wave tank.

 

And if you want to discount relativity because you think its wrong, please go ahead. But if you see light as light, spacetime as spacetime, and you stand in awe as to the complexity and beauty of the whole mess, then you'll appreciate the results of the myriads of experiments vindicating old Albert.

 

Good point Boerseun.

 

If a new proposal for consolidating and linking SI units Perfect units: Kissing the kilo goodbye - tech - 19 September 2007 - New Scientist Tech comes into being then space time would become a self referencing unit that should be simplified into it's respective meter and second units.

 

I wouldn't feel at all comfortable using mathematical manipulations (particularly calculus) on equations with constant SI units that change as a result of theoretical manipulations (i.e. constants change because of internal changes). Before you know it you've got one part that has gone negative and its twisted sister partner unit doesn't know whether its coming or going or time travelling.