Cosmology needs radical transformation

[Little Bang]

Modest, there is a problem with your post, time is relative to the motion of the observer. If I move close to C with respect to the rest of the universe time for the universe appears to me to be infinitely fast.

[modest]

Modest, there is a problem with your post, time is relative to the motion of the observer. If I move close to C with respect to the rest of the universe time for the universe appears to me to be infinitely fast.

 

Yes, relativity is another good example of how time cannot = motion. I didn’t want to use it as an example because niebieskieucho claims to not believe in relativity. But, like Newton’s laws of motion, we can use relativity to make a proof against niebieskieucho’s claim that time = motion.

 

Any event in special relativity must be defined with at least one time coordinate. Time is a variable in the equation and cannot be substituted with any form of motion - as velocity is also a variable in the equation. Let’s look at the equation:

[math]\text{t'=\tau} \Large{[ t-\frac{vx}{c^2}]} [/math]

In this equation time changes as a function of velocity. How could we define time as motion here? Would we say motion changes as a function of motion? It just wouldn't work! There is no form of motion or velocity that you could substitute where t is in this equation.

 

So, time is coordinate system - a dimension. And, special relativity shows us that time changes with respect to motion. It can NOT therefore be motion.

[CraigD]

If I move close to C with respect to the rest of the universe time for the universe appears to me to be infinitely fast.

This is incorrect.

 

If you move at a high speed relative to most of the nearby universe, most of the nearby universe appears to you to move slower, while to an observer there, you appear to move slower. This “lack of a privileged frame” is one of the fundamental features of Special Relativity.

 

According to SR, time dilation can never cause events in an inertial frame to appear to an observer in another to be occurring faster, only slower. This is an arithmetic consequence of the Lorentz transformation, [math]\tau = \sqrt{1-\left(\frac{v}{c}\right)^2}[/math], because [math]\tau \not> 1[/math] for any [math]v < c[/math].

 

Doppler shift can cause such events to appear to be occurring both faster and slower, and is key to resolving how much time passed in each frame in scenarios where frame accelerate and become common, such as the “twins paradox”.

[Little Bang]

What you say is true, but there are two places that I have difficulty treating time as a dimension. Where T approaches 0 and T approaches infinity. Meaning to me that the dimension of time is totally dependent upon the state of the observer. Then again so are all other dimensions including mass. When discussing relativity this question always comes to mind, is the state of the universe dependent upon the state of the observer?

[niebieskieucho]

If your “theory” were correct and time = motion then:

A pendulum repeating the same motion would in fact be repeating the same time over and over and there would be no history of events. This would be true for any harmonic system. We have a history of events because time is a dimension and tied to space.

 

No way. I dare say there was no pendulum in primordial, homogeneous, energetic space. Pendulum can appear only in connexion with material surrounding. That's the difference. If you claim time is a dimension, show me than this dimension in a solid body. Can you? Than on the same basis, temperature and pressure would be the next candidates in the line for dimension.

 

How does this work when time = motion?:

If you put a radioactive element in a box and shake it up – maybe throw it against a wall – any motion short of relativistic speeds – the decay rate in the box will remain the same. Time in the box remains the same in the box even with all this motion (the decay rate shows us the time). So, how can motion = time if (as this thought experiment shows) time exists linearly without respect for its motion?

 

Decay rate belongs to properties of matter. If you talk about time in the box, you should indicate – time of what? Because time spontaneously does not exist. But, we can talk about time of alpha, beta and gamma radiation.

 

Motion can only be properly described in a time dimension, otherwise:

According to your equation (time = motion) a particle in a closed system moves from coordinate A to coordinate B. And, irregardless of how fast or slow the particle moves from A to B – the same amount of time will pass because in your description the measure of time IS the measure of motion. Also, a photon moving from A to B would take the same amount of time (or motion) as an electron. This is, of course, not true.

 

A couple of storeys higher, I talked about ambiguities of the abstract idea of time. In this case applies second meaning of time (T<m2>)

 

 

The only way to treat time is dimensionally. The only way to describe motion is with a time dimension. Perhaps you have heard F = ma (newton's second law of MOTION). F is force. m is mass. a is acceleration. Acceleration is velocity over TIME. So - you cannot describe motion without a time dimension.

 

No. Time cannot be dimension. Mother Nature gave us only tree dimensions. You can move left - right, forwards - backwards, up - down. I cannot understand why you insist to consider time as a dimension. During acceleration bodies get hotter and undergo increased pressure. So shouldn't we include temperature and pressure to the consecutive dimensions in order to more fully describe reality? You can use of course vector of time, only in concrete situations (but never generally). To the above equation comes time or motion expressed in a value, i.e. in the second meaning of time (t<m2>). Similarly as in equations t = s/v, and v = s/t, time or motion is present in both of them having concrete values.

 

You seem to be saying we can define time using motion which uses time to calculate motion (you've got to see the fundamental problem here)

 

Time is unidirectional. Motion is not. <--- That right there should make you understand the two are not the same.

 

Maybe you can describe a system or chain of events that demonstrates your point. Give an example. Describe it in detail. Then we can discuss what is happening in your system.

Try a pendulum - describe a pendulum using only motion and not time (or however you want to describe it where motion = time).

 

-modest

 

The example with pendulum I have already discussed above. If you still wish to talk about it, let me know. Time in the first meaning (due to ambiguities of this word, i.e. T<m1>) means motion. If would not, than, we couldn't measure time with motion, and, couldn't measure motion with time. If you are in position to measure motion or time with something else than motion/time, than I will admit that you are right. Time spontaneously does not exist. Do you believe it, or not? If not, let's take gravitational equations for instance from which cosmic time drops out altogether. The above restriction is commonly known as a “constraint”. For me it's entirely obvious. Time spontaneously does not exist!

[modest]

No. Time cannot be dimension. Mother Nature gave us only tree dimensions. You can move left - right, forwards - backwards, up - down. I cannot understand why you insist to consider time as a dimension.

 

No, things move through 4 dimensions and you need to use 4 dimensions to properly describe somethings location. This is physics 101.

 

During acceleration bodies get hotter and undergo increased pressure. So shouldn't we include temperature and pressure to the consecutive dimensions in order to more fully describe reality?

 

No - accelerating bodies don't get hotter and increase in pressure. That is an effect of earth's atmosphere. I think you may benefit (and I mean no disrespect here - as we are all learning) from this website: Physics For Beginners: An introduction to physics for the absolute beginner

 

-modest

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

I agree with Modest

[niebieskieucho]

No, things move through 4 dimensions and you need to use 4 dimensions to properly describe somethings location. This is physics 101.

 

I have asked you to show me time dimension in a solid body. First of all things move in space. Every body, every group of bodies - let's call them stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc., cosmic dust, radiation, particles (not excepting their build-up consisting of smaller bricks of nature) are in motion. So, we can talk about dimensions of any of the above forms of matter, and time or their motions, including its intrinsic structure containing numerous and various forms of motion. Let's take a stone for example. The stone consists of various elements (chemical compounds). Now, when I throw this stone all motions contained in it are in the next motion (not to mention motion of Earth, our Solar System, our Milky Way). As you can see, we cannot talk about time separately, it must be connected to a concrete motion of something we want to examine, whereas spatial dimensions are only three, no matter what does it contain. And that is why I oppose to include time to the family of dimensions.

 

No - accelerating bodies don't get hotter and increase in pressure. That is an effect of earth's atmosphere. I think you may benefit (and I mean no disrespect here - as we are all learning) from this website: Physics For Beginners: An introduction to physics for the absolute beginner

 

-modest

 

It was misunderstanding. I was asking about including temperature and pressure to dimensions in physics, generally, on the same basis as time. But of course, it doesn't make a sense.

[Natural]

I agree completely with you Andrzej!

In fact through my ongoing study of physics I have just recently come to some of the same conclusions that you have.

Time does not need to be a dimension. And any of the dimensions that have been thought up lately can be said to only be other aspects of 3 dimensions which would make them not actual dimensions themselves. So the replies that automatically refer you to "physics 101" and Einstein’s equations are like having a mis-defined word in a dictionary and referring to the same dictionary for an example of the correct definition. And I’m not saying that all physics is incorrect, in fact I would even go so far as to say that almost everything else has merit. But if someone is bold enough to stand up and say that maybe something is incorrect, modern physics is only going to refer you to common thinking in physics as proof of their own thinking. (kind of has a religious feel to it doesn't it?)

And as far as the "perihelion of Mercury" experiments go, the equations are simply filling in a missing parameter of the problem and of course mathematics is made to fill in missing parameters. But that experiment doesn't include things like the physical functioning of gravity, (which is the whole basis of the problem) or the presence of dark matter or dark energy, whatever they turn out to be. (don’t forget that these ideas were thought up with information that is now over 100 years behind the times)

And let's also go a step farther in this transformation of cosmological ideas...

Space doesn't exist either. If it does then answer me this...

If mass (or gravity) bends space, where does the matter or energy "attach" to space? What are the specifics of the physical interaction between matter and space? And don't tell me "it's the fields that bend space", because the "fields" are properties of matter and energy,(or gravity) not space. Bending is a physical and energetic action. But space has no physicality to apply energy too. (and I’m not talking about things floating in space) In order for energy to be exchanged it must flow from one form of matter to another. (since matter is energy)

And of course in this interaction is motion and therefore time.

I would postulate that space is the area in which interactions take place but can be no part of the interactions themselves. But this is not to say that what is commonly referred to as "space" doesn't have "things" in it, but space is not the things in it, it is the area those "things" occupy. (whether we know what they are or not)

I would also postulate that time and space were required to exist before the big bang. Otherwise how was there a “moment” in which the big bang began and a “spot” in which it took place? I normally don’t like to use the word “infinite” because nothing in existence can be truly infinite by the very definition of existence. (0ccupying a specific area at a specific time) But space can be infinite because it doesn’t physically “exist”. It can just be an infinite area in which matter and energy could exist. And time can be infinite in it’s potential to continue since it doesn’t need a beginning or an end. You can't say that a dimension "exists" because it has no actual parameters and therefore can be infinite in it's usage or occupancy.

And by the way Andrzej... I stumbled across this forum when I found your book, "Definition of Time", which I haven't read yet but am about to order.

:confused:

[niebieskieucho]

I agree completely with you Andrzej!

In fact through my ongoing study of physics I have just recently come to some of the same conclusions that you have.

Snip

 

This is not my reply. I am very busy lately and will answer your questions shortly. In the meantime you can familiarize with my article:

 

Violations to laws of physics in Relativity

 

It would be easier to wade through it than through dozens of posts.

[freeztar]

Violations to laws of physics in Relativity

 

Unfortunately, this is wrought with inaccuracies.

 

I will not exhaust myself, but I'll point out a couple points of contingency:

 

* "To the false physical hypotheses belong the following ones – and almost all of them are connected with time:

1. Dilation of time"

 

Can you provide a better mathematical model? I fear you have forgone the mechanics for the car.

 

*"If it would be possible, it could mean that time might be something else, appearing spontaneously in nature, but this is impossible. There is no proof that it has been confirmed."

 

Ummm...

I would posit that time is a facet of Nature.

When talking about time, it seems silly to use phrases such as "appearing spontaneously in nature". To denote an appearance denotes a disappearance, or absence.

[niebieskieucho]

I agree completely with you Andrzej!

In fact through my ongoing study of physics I have just recently come to some of the same conclusions that you have.

Time does not need to be a dimension. And any of the dimensions that have been thought up lately can be said to only be other aspects of 3 dimensions which would make them not actual dimensions themselves. So the replies that automatically refer you to "physics 101" and Einstein’s equations are like having a mis-defined word in a dictionary and referring to the same dictionary for an example of the correct definition. And I’m not saying that all physics is incorrect, in fact I would even go so far as to say that almost everything else has merit. But if someone is bold enough to stand up and say that maybe something is incorrect, modern physics is only going to refer you to common thinking in physics as proof of their own thinking. (kind of has a religious feel to it doesn't it?)

I am not saying that all physics is incorrect neither. I am questioning hypotheses only. Do you see the difference? I consider this common thinking false. By the way what was time defined (described) when Relativity was born? Yeah, Relativity resembles religion. First of all Relativity doesn't distinguish clocks from time, whereas clocks are only bodies in experiments.

And as far as the "perihelion of Mercury" experiments go, the equations are simply filling in a missing parameter of the problem and of course mathematics is made to fill in missing parameters. But that experiment doesn't include things like the physical functioning of gravity, (which is the whole basis of the problem) or the presence of dark matter or dark energy, whatever they turn out to be. (don’t forget that these ideas were thought up with information that is now over 100 years behind the times)

If any law of physics is explained by means of Relativity, must automatically be false, because Relativity is based on false hypotheses.

And let's also go a step farther in this transformation of cosmological ideas...

Space doesn't exist either. If it does then answer me this...

If mass (or gravity) bends space, where does the matter or energy "attach" to space? What are the specifics of the physical interaction between matter and space? And don't tell me "it's the fields that bend space", because the "fields" are properties of matter and energy,(or gravity) not space. Bending is a physical and energetic action. But space has no physicality to apply energy too. (and I’m not talking about things floating in space) In order for energy to be exchanged it must flow from one form of matter to another. (since matter is energy)

And of course in this interaction is motion and therefore time.

I would postulate that space is the area in which interactions take place but can be no part of the interactions themselves. But this is not to say that what is commonly referred to as "space" doesn't have "things" in it, but space is not the things in it, it is the area those "things" occupy. (whether we know what they are or not)

Right. But we in fact don't know what space is. I cannot imagine space in other way than spherical volume. It's obvious that energy/matter is contained in space. In order we could say something about space, we should then turn into e.g. 10^-80 cm creature, and then space could be seen quite differently (dense?). I am applying a term “energetic space”. It could mean space is a “very rear (weak) energy”. Nobody knows what's spatial structure is. It must have some value in contrast to dimensionless nothingness, and that is why I am convinced that primordial energetic space gave birth to material part of the universe. All matter with its energy is contained in “yolk” of the universe. Beyond it is the same energetic space that gave birth to its material part.

I would also postulate that time and space were required to exist before the big bang.

I don't believe in singularity state of the universe, and consequently, big bang. I am imaginative enough but the universe compressed to 10^-33 cm is beyond my imagination. Time is motion. Of course if primordial energy was in oscillating motion (energy and matter must be in motion), so (as I already explained earlier) we can admit “timelessness”. Every part of the primordial energetic space was in the same, equal rhythm. Time had practically no meaning then.

Otherwise how was there a “moment” in which the big bang began and a “spot” in which it took place? I normally don’t like to use the word “infinite” because nothing in existence can be truly infinite by the very definition of existence. (0ccupying a specific area at a specific time) But space can be infinite because it doesn’t physically “exist”. It can just be an infinite area in which matter and energy could exist. And time can be infinite in it’s potential to continue since it doesn’t need a beginning or an end.

Time spontaneously does not appear. If we want to talk about time we must indicate first something that is moving. The universe along with its space is finite.

You can't say that a dimension "exists" because it has no actual parameters and therefore can be infinite in it's usage or occupancy.

Sorry. I couldn't find appropriate word.

And by the way Andrzej... I stumbled across this forum when I found your book, "Definition of Time", which I haven't read yet but am about to order.

It's your decision of course

[niebieskieucho]

Unfortunately, this is wrought with inaccuracies.

 

I will not exhaust myself, but I'll point out a couple points of contingency:

 

* "To the false physical hypotheses belong the following ones – and almost all of them are connected with time:

1. Dilation of time"

 

Can you provide a better mathematical model? I fear you have forgone the mechanics for the car.

 

*"If it would be possible, it could mean that time might be something else, appearing spontaneously in nature, but this is impossible. There is no proof that it has been confirmed."

 

Ummm...

I would posit that time is a facet of Nature.

When talking about time, it seems silly to use phrases such as "appearing spontaneously in nature". To denote an appearance denotes a disappearance, or absence.

 

There is such a true formula:

 

t = s/v

 

A rocket can travel some distances with some (here constant) velocities.

 

 

As you can see, to change time we must change either distance or speed or both values (s = km, v = km/hour, t = hours). And now how would you dilate time in any of the undermentioned examples, not touching other parameters (no matter how fast the rocket is). t = s/v - in case of alleged dilation we should get t1 > t.

 

s v t

 

240,000,000 / 80,000 = 3000

160,000,000 / 80,000 = 2000

 

240,000,000 / 60,000 = 4000

240,000,000 / 40,000 = 6000

 

250,000,000 / 50,000 = 5000

 

Relativity identifies time (motion) with clock, whereas clocks are just bodies in experiments, because undergo the same changes as bodies. Don't send me to Lorentz transformation. As earlier agreed time cannot be coordinate. None reference system makes any sense as neither speed of a body nor its motion depends on observer's location. If something is punctual and expected to arrive at 5 o'clock, it will arrive exactly at 5 o'clock no matter what strong hallucinations an observer has. Mixing physics with optical illusion is ridiculous and cannot be taken seriously. I have explained understanding of time and gave the reasons. Would you lake to shake it? So, it's your move now.

[freeztar]

There is such a true formula:

 

t = s/v

 

Or, as I learned in middle school: distance=rate*time

 

t = s/v - in case of alleged dilation we should get t1 > t.

 

Can you show me where you came to this conclusion.

I hope it's not this:

s v t

 

240,000,000 / 80,000 = 3000

160,000,000 / 80,000 = 2000

 

240,000,000 / 60,000 = 4000

240,000,000 / 40,000 = 6000

 

250,000,000 / 50,000 = 5000

Is this supposed to be a proof against time dilation?

Relativity identifies time (motion) with clock, whereas clocks are just bodies in experiments, because undergo the same changes as bodies.

 

I think you are taking it too literally. What do you mean by "same changes as bodies"?

 

Don't send me to Lorentz transformation.

 

Ok, but don't send me to a simple distance equation that does not account for different referential frames.

 

As earlier agreed time cannot be coordinate. None reference system makes any sense as neither speed of a body nor its motion depends on observer's location.

 

And how does that prove that no reference system makes sense?

 

If something is punctual and expected to arrive at 5 o'clock, it will arrive exactly at 5 o'clock no matter what strong hallucinations an observer has.

 

It's not a hallucination. The observer would say, "why are you late?".

 

Mixing physics with optical illusion is ridiculous and cannot be taken seriously.

 

I agree.

 

I have explained understanding of time and gave the reasons. Would you lake to shake it?

 

I believe I have.

 

So, it's your move now.

 

After you...

[CraigD]

Consider 2 spacecraft, A and B, approaching one another on a near-collision course at a speed of [math]\sqrt{\frac{1}{5}} \,\mbox{c}[/math] (about 134071263 m/s). A short radio signal is emitted from a third spacecraft, C, exactly 1 light-second (299792458 m) from A, and [math]\sqrt{\frac{5}{4}} \,\mbox{light-seconds}[/math] (about 335178158 m) from B. Through pre-planning, both A and C know the instant that C emitted the signal, and name that instant “time zero”.

 

Both A and B receive the signal as they nearly collide. According to A, the arrived at time zero + 1 sec. According to B, it arrived at time zero [math]+ \sqrt{\frac{5}{4}}[/math] (about 1.118) sec.

 

http://Special Relativity explains these events precisely via time dilation by the Lorentz factor of the ships’ relative speed:

[math]\frac{t_B}{t_A}=\sqrt{1- \left( \frac{v}{c} \right)^2}[/math]

 

An alternate theory must either offer a different explanation and mathematical method to explain these events, or deny that the events described can occur.

 

The most common form of the latter is to suggest that A nor B will receive the signal at the same time according to their respective clocks, and that the speed of light appears to A to be slower than it does to B. There are 2 sub-versions of this idea: one in which the speed of light depends on the object emitting it (commonly called emission theories) and another in which it depends on some absolute reference frame (commonly called ether theories).

 

All of these theories were popular at some point in history, but were for all intents rendered obsolete by the Michaelson Morley experiment’s results, leaving the field to Special Relativity.

 

Niebieskieucho, without spending effort criticizing relativity or other theories, how does your theory address my example?

 

PS: My example is a simplification of the famous “light clock” example.

[snoopy]

Dear Niebieskieucho,

 

I suppose the obvious flaw with your ideas is that your proposing a return to just a euclidean 3 space with time as something else not a dimension of time.

 

The problem with this is that the earth is in motion and we do not feel this motion of the earth, we would have to return to aristotle and his ideas of a stationary earth.

 

To simplify under your own framework you would either feel the earth moving beneath your feet or you would have to deny its movement, which is it to be ?

 

Your arguments are full of sound and fury signifiyng nothing.

 

Peace

:D

[snoopy]

should read 'not a dimension of space' sorry