Cosmology needs radical transformation

[niebieskieucho]

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

 

Sorry, you are right. I was answering from volley. I gave you a particular examples that energy not always was connected with possibility of time measuring. Maybe I made myself not clear enough. I'd like to illustrate it again on the primordial space filled with primordial, homogeneous, oscillating energy. Energy, the basic component of the material world performed movements “step forwards, step backwards”. That means did the way +1, -1 or else 0. What was time in such case? As t = s/v, and t = 0, and, 0/any “v”gives 0, so, we can admit in this instance so called “timelessness”. I agree that everything has its energy, and we can theoretically measure time of anything. Let's take for instance the motionless figurine. It contains its energy, but practically its motion /time = 0, however micro motions could still be measured. Energy of something means that something always is in motion. To sum up, I agree that a body's energy means motion in its intrinsic structure, and of itself of course.

[niebieskieucho]

Time being defined in terms of motion is erroneous.

 

I don't agree.

 

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.

 

You are doing the same. What's the spatial difference? What's at a later time? You are hiding time in synonyms. I maintain motion = time. It's obvious that due to ambiguities of the word “time”, there appeared ideas to differentiate meanings of notion of “time”. Of course I've got my own definition of motion, but it's impossible to get rid of synonym and in addition to it tautology as well, as it is a roundabout definition of time. So:

“Motion is changing anything's position in relation to anything”. The same time is.

I am aware, that defining time, I am not able to avoid synonyms - as I told about it earlier. That means it is defined “idem per idem”, but such cases happen when we try to define basic ideas. The most significant thing is that you cannot measure time without motion, and, you cannot measure motion without time. It's obvious that time means not only cadenced ticking of the clock and that are examples of complicated motions, very difficult to measure, sometimes impossible. So, the formula t = s/v not always might be applied.

 

You are wrong. You could easily find definition of a meter.

 

What might be possible though, is that spacetime is simply that: spacetime.

 

By the way - spacetime does not exist. You cannot marry space with time, as time spontaneously doesn't exist. Similarly as there is no space-temperature or space-pressure nor matter-time, although time is matter's attribute, as matter is in constant motion.

 

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.

 

Could you give me at least one experiment confirming relativity? There are no such experiments, because it's impossible. I know only experiments allegedly “confirming” relativity. Experiments based on false hypotheses must be false.

 

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.

 

You propagate defeatism and mysticism. Everything is explicable, the problem is that science is not able at the present stage of knowledge to cope with unanswered questions. Scientists won't be able to explain structure of any particles as long as they find tools to reach the subtlety of the micro world, including space. Would it be ever possible? That's the separate question.

 

 

Space bends and influences time.[/QOUTE]

 

Rubbish. If you are talking about spacial influence of time, you should add - time of what. Time spontaneously doesn't exist. I'm repeating it 100 x twice.

 

 

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.

 

Yes, relativity is definitely wrong, and you are wrong. I am aware enough of complexity of nature, but don't complicate simple things.

[niebieskieucho]

I'd like to apologize for having not replied to e-mails I received. When I got to my box, there was a red strip 100% filled. I tried to get the e-mails by means of text, than XML next CSV (having no idea how it works) and was unable to open any link to answer. I would gladly reply to each e-mail, but if too much, it couldn't be done in reasonable time. I would prefer to receive mail at:

al dot 1 at gazeta dot pl (spaces to be ignored).

[niebieskieucho]

As I promised earlier, I'd like to present briefly my conclusions on the universe.

- The universe is finite.

- Beyond the universe nothing exists. That means there is no space beyond it.

- The universe spreads farther than we can penetrate it. Noticeable acceleration of galaxies must be caused by huge masses which cannot be seen, and not by mysterious “great attractor”.

- The universe doesn't expand.

- The universe must rotate. We cannot observe its rotation because we are far off its axis.

- The universe was delivered by primordial, energetic space. It originated from a condensed energy, by changing its oscillating motion to rotating one. The "excessive" energy (or such condensation of energy was unavoidable) was converted into matter which is in counterbalance to energetic space. The condensed energy of space initiated an avalanching creation of the simplest particles, which started to combine with themselves leading to creation of the most simple element, hydrogen. There were created numberless, gigantic whirling hydrogen clouds of the mass approximately equal to the present-day universe. After reaching critical points as a result of increasing density, owing to rotational motion, these protostars exploded and scattered their masses, leading to creation of "small universes" resembling our one. I'd like to stress that the universe is obviously one.

- The axis of the universe goes through its biggest mass and is not a fix one.

- Dispersed "small universes" with their galaxies will bump, concentrate and explode without the possibility of winding-up as one object. The universe will probably exist for ever, undergoing evolutionary changes.

The above description presents my own view with which nobody has to agree. I am fully aware that this description doesn't give answer to millions of questions, but if true, forms a runway for farther questions setting the course in proper direction.

[sanctus]

To sum up, I agree that a body's energy means motion in its intrinsic structure, and of itself of course.

 

Well that is not exactly what I meant and gives some problems if you consider so far seeming point-like constituents of the universe like leptons.

[Pluto]

Hello Nieb

 

You said

 

As I promised earlier, I'd like to present briefly my conclusions on the universe.

- The universe is finite.

 

How do you define finite? In an infinite universe.

 

- Beyond the universe nothing exists. That means there is no space beyond it.

-

 

Where do you get this info from? Beyond what point? The deeper we see into space the more we observe.

 

Images show billions of galaxies.

 

The universe spreads farther than we can penetrate it. Noticeable acceleration of galaxies must be caused by huge masses which cannot be seen, and not by mysterious “great attractor”.

- The universe doesn't expand.

-

 

Your right the universe does not expand. The universe is infinite in all aspects, time, matter and space.

 

The universe must rotate. We cannot observe its rotation because we are far off its axis.

 

The universe is all and being all cannot rotate. The parts within go through the motion of rotation expansion and contraction in a never ending recycling process.

 

- The universe was delivered by primordial, energetic space. It originated from a condensed energy, by changing its oscillating motion to rotating one. The "excessive" energy (or such condensation of energy was unavoidable) was converted into matter which is in counterbalance to energetic space. The condensed energy of space initiated an avalanching creation of the simplest particles, which started to combine with themselves leading to creation of the most simple element, hydrogen. There were created numberless, gigantic whirling hydrogen clouds of the mass approximately equal to the present-day universe. After reaching critical points as a result of increasing density, owing to rotational motion, these protostars exploded and scattered their masses, leading to creation of "small universes" resembling our one. I'd like to stress that the universe is obviously one.

 

There is no origin to infinity, what we observe is a process of recycling. We observe stars in varies phases and rejuvination. Similar with galaxies and cluster of galaxies.

 

- The axis of the universe goes through its biggest mass and is not a fix one.

 

The universe does not have an axis. The parts within do.

 

- Dispersed "small universes" with their galaxies will bump, concentrate and explode without the possibility of winding-up as one object. The universe will probably exist for ever, undergoing evolutionary changes.

 

The universe being one cannot have any other. To define the parts within, thats another issue. Depends on size. Cluster of galaxies, cluster of clusters of galaxies or super cluster of clsuter of clsuters of galaxies. Where do you stop?

 

 

The above description presents my own view with which nobody has to agree. I am fully aware that this description doesn't give answer to millions of questions, but if true, forms a runway for farther questions setting the course in proper direction.

 

Yes it is your own view. Do you want your view to be restricted or just to have and hold for better or worse.

 

Maybe your right, but in the mean time. Keep reading and than read more, until you find how little we all know of the universe and that what we think means very little.

 

For decades I have been looking at the stars and still I find myself knowing, that the more I read the more I find that I know very little.

[Boerseun]

Rubbish.

Sorry about that. If you can't cope with the complexities of Relativity, I'd hate to hear your reaction to Quantum theory!

 

You want a "common sense" answer to scientific issues. You want to reduce the descriptions and attributes of the natural world to common everyday analogies that you can understand. I put it to you that it is exactly that approach and the veneration of a "common sense" universe that gave as the Flat Earth Theory, and a geocentric universe, amongst other oddities. But if you disagree with me, so be it.

 

Let me try once more to explain to you why your definition of time is wrong:

 

You say that time is nothing but motion. That's brilliant, and intuitive. Surely it must be right, right? Not so.

 

Please try and define motion without using time.

 

You see?

 

Your approach is self-referential, and to put it in your suave terms, flat-out wrong. End of story.

 

And no, my approach isn't defeatist in the least. Let's look at another analogy:

 

We want to shoehorn light into being a wave, because it has properties that resembles that which we experience in everyday life and are used to and comfortable with, namely waves. Now look at a wave. We take a wave for granted, and use it in order to describe other things. So, by your approach, saying something is "wavelike" because it resembles a wave, and then not taking the properties of waves any further, is defeatist, not so? Your description stops at a wave, taking a wave (and its properties) as the fundamental property. Me, is saying that "light is light and acts precisely like we expect light to act" is not defeatist, I'm merely of the opinion that light and its properties are fundamental.

Yes, relativity is definitely wrong, and you are wrong. I am aware enough of complexity of nature, but don't complicate simple things.

Ah. Once again, the totally self-convinced "common-sense" approach. Be careful you don't fall off the side of your common-sense flat Earth.

 

The universe does not need to comply with the mental capabilities of one species living on a tiny speck in the boondocks of an average galaxy, however much that species might want it to be so.

[niebieskieucho]

Well that is not exactly what I meant and gives some problems if you consider so far seeming point-like constituents of the universe like leptons.

 

Maybe, but their internal structure is still unknown.

[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.

 

You need motion to measure time. Motion is 'energy' in the form of 'work'.

The above terms are variations of 'motion' as a basic component of physics.

The other two are 'matter' and 'force'.

All other variations are derived from the three above.

 

Yes, there are 'just' 3 dimensions to space.

 

As far as I know, Einsteins 'spacetime' requires a 'series' of 3 dimensional changes to include time as a component(?)

 

Mike C

[CraigD]

Could you give me at least one experiment confirming relativity? There are no such experiments, because it's impossible.

Popular references, such as the wikipedia articles “Status of special relativity” and ”Tests of general relativity”, provide an overview and summary of the many experimental confirmations of relativity. This post and this post by modest also contain useful links to such experiments, and overview information about relativity.

 

Niebieskieucho, you may chose to reject the conclusions of these experiments or the theories they test, but to deny their existence shows either profound ignorance of scientific literature, or a rejection of the value of the opinions of thousands of human beings considered credible by most people.

 

Although you’ve not discussed your educational, professional, or life background, from the style of your posts, I gather you’ve not had more than the most introductory science and math in a conventional academic setting. If this is the case, attempting to analyze experiments may be an ineffective way for you to approach the theory of relativity in such a way that you can be conversant in it, either pro or con. I believe a more effective approach – and better for our many readers who have less than a professional scientist or academic’s experience with physics litterature - is to consider a well-known instructive thought experiment, such as the light clock example. Beginning with the couple of hundred words, diagrams, and few simple mathematical equations of this example, can you state specifically where you believe the example is incorrect?

[jedaisoul]

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 think that it is possible to define time. What is difficult is to prove that the definition matches reality.

 

The definition of time that I accept is that only the instant “now” actually exists. The past and the future are abstract concepts that exist in our imaginations. Thus time is not a dimension in the sense that the spatial ones are.

 

This is an important point, because it suggests that Minkowski spacetime, and Einstein’s General Theory, are models that do not correspond to any actual entity. This also suggests that time travel is a feature of the model, that does not correspond to reality. This does not invalidate the model, it just suggests that GR is a super-set which includes reality, and some weird stuff as well.

 

Einstein said “The general laws of nature are to be expressed by equations which hold good for all systems of co-ordinates, that is, are co-variant with respect to any substitution whatever (generally covariant)”. Saying that it is necessary to form the equations in this manner is very different from saying that all substitutions are actually possible in reality. It just means that if time travel were possible, this is how it would act.

 

In fact, if you think about it, Newtonian physics also treats time as a dimension. With a given object travelling at a specific velocity with respect to a given frame of reference, you can predict where it will go (run time forwards) and calculate where it came from (run time backwards). That you cannot, in fact, run time backwards does not invalidate these calculations. It is only if you interpret them as signifying that time can actually run backwards that you may be in error.

 

Of course, as I said, the rub is proving that this interpretation corresponds to reality.

[Little Bang]

The definition of time, astoundingly complicated apparently. Five words, " The orderly occurrence of events. ". Motion is an event, a wave is an event, beta decay is an event. We keep having these threads on a thing that we invented so that we could have a scale to measure between observed events. We keep trying to turn time into something it is not.

[niebieskieucho]

You need motion to measure time. Motion is 'energy' in the form of 'work'.

The above terms are variations of 'motion' as a basic component of physics.

The other two are 'matter' and 'force'.

All other variations are derived from the three above.

 

Yes, there are 'just' 3 dimensions to space.

 

As far as I know, Einsteins 'spacetime' requires a 'series' of 3 dimensional changes to include time as a component(?)

 

Mike C

 

 

I'm sorry, I've already rectified my answer couple of storeys higher.

[niebieskieucho]

Hello Nieb

 

You said

 

 

 

How do you define finite? In an infinite universe.

 

-

 

Where do you get this info from? Beyond what point? The deeper we see into space the more we observe.

 

Images show billions of galaxies.

 

-

 

Your right the universe does not expand. The universe is infinite in all aspects, time, matter and space.

 

 

 

The universe is all and being all cannot rotate. The parts within go through the motion of rotation expansion and contraction in a never ending recycling process.

 

 

 

There is no origin to infinity, what we observe is a process of recycling. We observe stars in varies phases and rejuvination. Similar with galaxies and cluster of galaxies.

 

 

 

The universe does not have an axis. The parts within do.

 

 

 

The universe being one cannot have any other. To define the parts within, thats another issue. Depends on size. Cluster of galaxies, cluster of clusters of galaxies or super cluster of clsuter of clsuters of galaxies. Where do you stop?

 

 

 

 

Yes it is your own view. Do you want your view to be restricted or just to have and hold for better or worse.

 

Maybe your right, but in the mean time. Keep reading and than read more, until you find how little we all know of the universe and that what we think means very little.

 

For decades I have been looking at the stars and still I find myself knowing, that the more I read the more I find that I know very little.

 

By finite universe I understand its finite volume. In nature everything is finite. Of course, for us, space users, it seems infinite. You are asking me question beyond what point. It seems you didn't read my post in which I had approximated its radius (in a speculative way, as we are unable to reach subatomic structure of space). Beyond that radius there is nothing, or there is not anything, or there is undimensional NOTHING. Confines of the universe including space beyond its “yolk” is deserted. Universe must rotate as such are the laws of physics. Infinity in nature does not exist. Could you construct asymptotic slope? If so, I'll be the first to congratulate you. Have you properly understood me? The universe is obviously one. But, due to lack appropriate onomastics, I call “small universes” similar to our bubble we can penetrate. I am not going to change my view of the universe unless somebody will propose more convincing one. I am keeping reading but there is nothing new in the field of cosmology, and, they still multiply false hypotheses and theories, which I cannot accept.

[niebieskieucho]

Sorry about that. If you can't cope with the complexities of Relativity, I'd hate to hear your reaction to Quantum theory! |/quote|

 

Have you properly understood what I am questioning? See my list of myths. In physics you cannot mix illusion with reality. Let's take for instance time. Doe's any observer have impact on motion/time of the body? Body can accelerate, slow down or stop, but none observer can accelerate, slow down or stop motion/time.

 

|quote|You want a "common sense" answer to scientific issues. You want to reduce the descriptions and attributes of the natural world to common everyday analogies that you can understand. I put it to you that it is exactly that approach and the veneration of a "common sense" universe that gave as the Flat Earth Theory, and a geocentric universe, amongst other oddities. But if you disagree with me, so be it.|/quote|

 

First of all it is much better when hypotheses are consistent with common sense than to deny it. Secondly, particularly in Cosmology common sense is highly required, because science has no possibility to test any cosmological model. Carrying out of such experiment is simply impossible.

 

 

|quote|Let me try once more to explain to you why your definition of time is wrong:

 

You say that time is nothing but motion. That's brilliant, and intuitive. Surely it must be right, right? Not so.

 

Please try and define motion without using time.

 

You see?

 

Your approach is self-referential, and to put it in your suave terms, flat-out wrong. End of story.|/quote|

 

You are doing nothing else but confirming my words. There is no possibility to define time without using synonyms. Similarly motion. I have already given my definition of motion couple of floors higher. But in this case we have at least imagination what time is, and, that can find out that there is no mysticism in it. Einstein (full respect to this scientist) had no idea what time was, hence created hypotheses that were false through and trough, and applied them to his false theories.

 

|quote|And no, my approach isn't defeatist in the least. Let's look at another analogy:

 

We want to shoehorn light into being a wave, because it has properties that resembles that which we experience in everyday life and are used to and comfortable with, namely waves. Now look at a wave. We take a wave for granted, and use it in order to describe other things. So, by your approach, saying something is "wavelike" because it resembles a wave, and then not taking the properties of waves any further, is defeatist, not so? Your description stops at a wave, taking a wave (and its properties) as the fundamental property. Me, is saying that "light is light and acts precisely like we expect light to act" is not defeatist, I'm merely of the opinion that light and its properties are fundamental.|/quote|

 

Light acts in a such way as nature orders it. As I said earlier, everything in nature is explicable, but scientists have not reached the level of ability of examining micro-world yet. There is nothing against laws of nature in it.

 

|quote|Ah. Once again, the totally self-convinced "common-sense" approach. Be careful you don't fall off the side of your common-sense flat Earth.|/quote|

 

I'll repeat once more: it is much better if hypotheses are consistent with common sense than to deny it. In Cosmology common sense is indispensable, because science has no possibility to test any cosmological model. Carrying out of such experiment is simply impossible. One of the main ways to describe the universe is logic thinking.

 

 

|quote|The universe does not need to comply with the mental capabilities of one species living on a tiny speck in the boondocks of an average galaxy, however much that species might want it to be so.

 

I maintain what I said earlier. Everything is explicable. The problem is that we are not ready yet to reach the subtlety of the micro-world.

[niebieskieucho]

Popular references, such as the wikipedia articles “Status of special relativity” and ”Tests of general relativity”, provide an overview and summary of the many experimental confirmations of relativity. This post and this post by modest also contain useful links to such experiments, and overview information about relativity.

 

You are writing nothing new. All these experiments are false, because:

As to aether, we must not excluded it as we haven't got appropriate tools to reach complexity of the micro-world. Science is not ready yet to enter matter (sic!) of 10^-70 cm diameter. So, such experiment resembles well known statement that Earth is flat.

 

 

Niebieskieucho, you may chose to reject the conclusions of these experiments or the theories they test, but to deny their existence shows either profound ignorance of scientific literature, or a rejection of the value of the opinions of thousands of human beings considered credible by most people.

 

Although you’ve not discussed your educational, professional, or life background, from the style of your posts, I gather you’ve not had more than the most introductory science and math in a conventional academic setting. If this is the case, attempting to analyze experiments may be an ineffective way for you to approach the theory of relativity in such a way that you can be conversant in it, either pro or con. I believe a more effective approach – and better for our many readers who have less than a professional scientist or academic’s experience with physics litterature - is to consider a well-known instructive thought experiment, such as the light clock example. Beginning with the couple of hundred words, diagrams, and few simple mathematical equations of this example, can you state specifically where you believe the example is incorrect?

 

Convictions of most of people don't make impression on me. I prefer to walk my own way. I am not scientist (just economist). As I have noticed you also belong to relativistic conservatives. May I repeat once more: theories based on false hypotheses must be false. There is no such experiment that confirms dilation of time. It's simply impossible. They allegedly “confirm”. Let's take for instance experiment with caesium clocks. It's ridiculous. In this case clocks were confused with time, whereas they were just bodies in this experiment. Alleged dilation of time was nothing else as impact of conditions on clock's mechanism, but never on time! Tell me than what would you get if you would put such a clock to a blast-furnace? I will tell you. You would melt time! And what would you get if you would put this clock to liquid nitrogen and than struck it with the hammer? You would disperse time into pieces. Do you consider it as a serious experiment or rather a joke? As you can see science must be cleaned from nonsenses. Apart from proper mathematical calculations, common sense must be applied too. Do you feel strong enough to elongate time/motion? I wouldn't try to do it in your shoes. By the way, if everything is explained and proved, why theories still remain theories? I am not questioning science, but scientific hypotheses and theories - that's the difference.

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

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

[niebieskieucho]

I think that it is possible to define time. What is difficult is to prove that the definition matches reality.

 

The definition of time that I accept is that only the instant “now” actually exists. The past and the future are abstract concepts that exist in our imaginations. Thus time is not a dimension in the sense that the spatial ones are.

 

This is an important point, because it suggests that Minkowski spacetime, and Einstein’s General Theory, are models that do not correspond to any actual entity. This also suggests that time travel is a feature of the model, that does not correspond to reality. This does not invalidate the model, it just suggests that GR is a super-set which includes reality, and some weird stuff as well.

 

Einstein said “The general laws of nature are to be expressed by equations which hold good for all systems of co-ordinates, that is, are co-variant with respect to any substitution whatever (generally covariant)”. Saying that it is necessary to form the equations in this manner is very different from saying that all substitutions are actually possible in reality. It just means that if time travel were possible, this is how it would act.

 

In fact, if you think about it, Newtonian physics also treats time as a dimension. With a given object travelling at a specific velocity with respect to a given frame of reference, you can predict where it will go (run time forwards) and calculate where it came from (run time backwards). That you cannot, in fact, run time backwards does not invalidate these calculations. It is only if you interpret them as signifying that time can actually run backwards that you may be in error.

 

Of course, as I said, the rub is proving that this interpretation corresponds to reality.

 

“Now” doesn't say much. Can you measure “now” of something?