Cosmology needs radical transformation

[niebieskieucho]

...

Is this supposed to be a proof against time dilation?

[/QOTE]

Al right.

t = time, t1 = dilated time, t1 > t

s/v = t

in case of dilation

s/v = t1

 

We have then:

s/v = t

s/v = t1

 

As it appears t = t1. This is contradiction, and means dilation of time is nonsense.

 

I think you are taking it too literally.

Not at all.

What do you mean by "same changes as bodies"?

I mean clocks as well as bodies undergo e.g. temperature, pressure changes and nature doesn't differentiate them.

 

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

Because time is always a local matter. Do you see any sense to carry out observations of anything from the tossed apple-tree during hurricane? If you are taking a reference system, one can always find numberless reference systems. In fact none observer of any reference system has any influence neither on speed nor motion of anything. How do you imagine carrying observations (if we could of course) of an electron circulating around an atom, from any reference system? And even if you could notice any difference between what you see and factual velocity of the electron, what would be true? Answer could be only one: factual velocity of the electron.

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

Observer is always the third party. It's obvious that what he can see could be caused be density of the medium that is indifferent to light and acts as a brake hence delay what the observer sees is quite natural. Nature doesn't need any observer to act according laws of physics.

 

I believe I have.

But you didn't.

[Natural]

Through pre-planning, both A and C know the instant that C emitted the signal, and name that instant “time zero”.

...

 

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 main problem that I can see with this equation is a very basic one. This theory and equation are trying to define a "time dilation" but are using a universal time reference to do it.

If you believe that time is relative then there is no actual way that A and C could know an "instant" that the signal was emitted. Because time to A is "A's time" and time to C is "C's time". Which means that the equation is dividing apples by oranges. ( tB/tA ) is oranges divided by apples which don't give you anything.

(just an observation)

[snoopy]

Ok I will try again,

 

you are proposing a return to just a euclidean 3 space with time as something else not a dimension of space.

 

In this case in particular you are saying time is 'motion'.

 

The obvious flaw with this is the earth is in motion but we do not feel this motion.

 

To simplify if Im in a car I feel its motion, if Im in a plane I feel its motion

 

Why dont I feel the motion of the Earth ?

 

according to your theory I should.

 

Unless the Earth is not moving is that what you are proposing ?

 

Also you have a problem with how to define 'time' under your framework you would have to take into account everything that is 'moving' to get a workable defintion of time

That is the motion of the spinning earth, the earth going around the sun, the sun going around the galaxy, the galaxy going around the 'local group of galaxies' the 'local group' going around the centre of the Virgo cluster, the Virgo cluster going arond the coma supercluster?

 

Do I really need to take into account the motion of the entrire universe just to use time in my equations ?

 

no of course not Gallileo has shown this to be completely unnecessary because time must be relative.

 

Peace

[freeztar]

...

Is this supposed to be a proof against time dilation?

[/QOTE]

Al right.

t = time, t1 = dilated time, t1 > t

s/v = t

in case of dilation

s/v = t1

 

We have then:

s/v = t

s/v = t1

 

As it appears t = t1. This is contradiction, and means dilation of time is nonsense.

 

Perfect. I was hoping to elicit this response.

 

It's a logical fallacy, formally known as the fallacy of equivocation.

 

The reason that relativity even exists as a theory today is that we've gone beyond the apple tree.

 

I mean clocks as well as bodies undergo e.g. temperature, pressure changes and nature doesn't differentiate them.

Can you conceive a 'mental image' of clock, rather than thinking of it as a physical body? This is what I meant by "taking it too literally".

 

Because time is always a local matter. Do you see any sense to carry out observations of anything from the tossed apple-tree during hurricane?

 

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, but I have a hunch that I addressed it above.

 

If you are taking a reference system, one can always find numberless reference systems.

 

Indeed.

 

In fact, no observer of any reference system has any influence neither on speed nor motion of anything.

 

Well, that depends upon the "observer". It would be silly to argue that an observer galaxy has no influence upon a clsoely neighboring "gas cloud", or another galaxy. But perhaps it is I this time that is taking it too literally. :hihi:

 

How do you imagine carrying observations (if we could of course) of an electron circulating around an atom, from any reference system? And even if you could notice any difference between what you see and factual velocity of the electron, what would be true? Answer could be only one: factual velocity of the electron.

 

I'm certainly no student of QM, but I do believe that the electron's position can be obtained as well (though not concurrently with velocity).

 

Nature doesn't need any observer to act according laws of physics.

Of course, you are right. But if we are going to be...ummm...observing anything in Nature, then we logically must be observers. Hence, the term "observer" is ubiquitously used to "metaphor" abstract ideas into tangible meaning.

 

But you didn't.

 

Do you still believe that? I may have not been so eloquent in my approach, but CraigD had an eloquent follow-up that pretty much "hammered the board shut" imho.

[Natural]

Ok I will try again,

 

you are proposing a return to just a euclidean 3 space with time as something else not a dimension of space.

 

In this case in particular you are saying time is 'motion'.

 

The obvious flaw with this is the earth is in motion but we do not feel this motion.

 

To simplify if Im in a car I feel its motion, if Im in a plane I feel its motion

 

Why dont I feel the motion of the Earth ?

 

according to your theory I should.

 

Unless the Earth is not moving is that what you are proposing ?

 

Also you have a problem with how to define 'time' under your framework you would have to take into account everything that is 'moving' to get a workable defintion of time

That is the motion of the spinning earth, the earth going around the sun, the sun going around the galaxy, the galaxy going around the 'local group of galaxies' the 'local group' going around the centre of the Virgo cluster, the Virgo cluster going arond the coma supercluster?

 

Do I really need to take into account the motion of the entrire universe just to use time in my equations ?

 

no of course not Gallileo has shown this to be completely unnecessary because time must be relative.

 

Peace

:)

 

The reason that you don't feel the earth moving is twofold. First the earth is much MUCH more massive than a car meaning that you are not held into the car by gravity. :D (not so you could notice anyway)

And second you were born in motion so the only way you can notice the difference is when you increase that motion by traveling in a car or plane.

Plus if the earth speed up, say twice the speed, then you would "notice" it.

:D:)

[snoopy]

The reason that you don't feel the earth moving is twofold. First the earth is much MUCH more massive than a car meaning that you are not held into the car by gravity. :D (not so you could notice anyway)

And second you were born in motion so the only way you can notice the difference is when you increase that motion by traveling in a car or plane.

Plus if the earth speed up, say twice the speed, then you would "notice" it.

:D:)

 

 

If the Earth sped up to twice its currnet speed you wouldnt notice it all.

 

But Im sure you are not being entirely serious so :doh: to you too..

 

 

Peace

:)

[CraigD]

To simplify if Im in a car I feel its motion, if Im in a plane I feel its motion

 

Why dont I feel the motion of the Earth ?

The reason that you don't feel the earth moving is twofold. First the earth is much MUCH more massive than a car meaning that you are not held into the car by gravity. :thumbs_up (not so you could notice anyway)

And second you were born in motion so the only way you can notice the difference is when you increase that motion by traveling in a car or plane.

Plus if the earth speed up, say twice the speed, then you would "notice" it.

If the Earth sped up to twice its currnet speed you wouldnt notice it all.

Though off topic, this conversation seems to me in need of clarification in terms of ordinary mechanics.

 

What appears to be being discussed here is Galilean relativity, which states, in short, that you can’t “feel” any the motions above without some sort of interaction between a “moving” and “stationary” “frame”.

 

The reason we can “feel” the motion of a plane or a car is because of those vehicles interaction with their surrounding media – air friction and turbulence in the case of the former, tire noise and terrain bumps in the latter, and forces due to accelerating to and from speed and maneuvering in both cases. It’s not a very reliable feeling. A small plane traveling a few hundred km/hr typically feels as if its moving faster relative to the ground than a large one traveling nearly a thousand. Aircraft traveling faster than sound (over about 1100 km/hr at typical altitudes) are typically described by passengers as seeming very still. Cars with smooth suspensions traveling over 100 km/hr on smooth road typically feel as if they’re moving slower than ones with harsh suspensions traveling at much lower speeds, and/or on rough roads.

 

Though the principle of Galilean relativity states that we can’t, without some outside measurement, sense the relative motion of one frame to another, it does not state that we can’t sense changes in this relative motion due to acceleration of our frame due to some forces. For example, if the Earth were to somehow be accelerated to twice it’s orbital speed of about 29800 m/s by, say, a huge rocket, in 1 hour, the roughly 0.8 g acceleration would to a person on its surface about like a panic stop in a car (and have pretty catastrophic effects on the atmosphere, oceans, and crust, Earth not being all that solidly stuck together). If the acceleration occurred over the period of a year, however, it would only be about 0.0001 g, which is, to the best of my knowledge, well below the threshold of human perception.

[niebieskieucho]

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.

 

My dear Snoopy,

 

Time cannot be taken into consideration as dimension. Time means motion. How do you imagine motion as dimension?

 

 

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.

 

Excuse me. Do you feel motion of Milky Way?

 

 

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.

 

You are wrong. I am humble in front of science. Moreover, I have minute knowledge on physics, but... I will never accept false scientific hypotheses and theories.

My mother would say: It's easier to kill Andrew than to convince him.

I can't help it.

I accept what science explains but I need not to accept hypotheses and theories I consider false. Do you differentiate theses things?

 

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

 

IN VINO SANITAS

*** AQVA CARITAS

[Natural]

If the Earth sped up to twice its currnet speed you wouldnt notice it all.

:thumbs_up

I know this may not be exactly what this thread started out talking about but...

Actually what I thought you would notice is that in not too long a time you might be gasping for breath as the atmosphere slowly began slipping away from the centrifugal force. (I know... I know... centrifugal force doesn't really exist) but tell that to someone on a carnival ride. Anyway even if you didn't notice that you felt somewhat "lighter" because 1g wouldn't feel like 1g anymore, since that atmosphere slips away at the present speed I assume that it would slip away much faster at twice the rotational speed.

Any thoughts?

:)

[CraigD]

Actually what I thought you would notice is that in not too long a time you might be gasping for breath as the atmosphere slowly began slipping away from the centrifugal force. (I know... I know... centrifugal force doesn't really exist) but tell that to someone on a carnival ride. Anyway even if you didn't notice that you felt somewhat "lighter" because 1g wouldn't feel like 1g anymore, since that atmosphere slips away at the present speed I assume that it would slip away much faster at twice the rotational speed.

Natural, try supporting this speculation with some simple calculations. Calculate the net acceleration of a body at the equator relative to the surface as it currently is, then for twice the rate of rotation (that is, for a 12 hour day).

 

I believe you’ll be underwhelmed, and cease to entertain imaginings of us gasping for breath as the atmosphere slips away. :thumbs_up

 

In accordance with the principle that conclusions reached on ones own are more memorable, I’ll leave the calculations to you – should you need guidance, just reply so, and you’ll receive it.

[snoopy]

Ok I will try again,

 

What Nieb is proposing is a return to a euclidean 3 space with time not as a dimension but as a measure of motion.

 

This is Aristotles idea

 

whereby he concluded that the earth is stationary and the celestial sphere rotates about the centre of the universe (ie the earth)

 

this stationary earth is important as you would feel the earth move if the earth wasnt stationary as you have defined time as a measure of motion.

 

But don't take my word for it here is a link to stanford University discussing the same problem.

 

Newton's Views on Space, Time, and Motion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

Peace

:phones:

[snoopy]

Zeno's Argument against Motion.

 

 

I would also like to point out Zeno's famous paradox in which he discusses the impossibility of the flight of an arrow if time is just caused by things being in motion.

 

Zeno states the following.

"What is in motion moves neither in the place it is nor in one in which it is not".

 

or put more simply what is in motion doesnt move where it is now where it will be in the future or where it has been in the past.

 

This argument against motion explicitly turns on a particular kind of assumption of plurality: that time is composed of moments (or ‘nows’) and nothing else. Consider an arrow, apparently in motion, at any instant. First, Zeno assumes that it travels no distance during that moment — ‘it occupies an equal space’ for the whole instant. But the entire period of its motion contains only instants, all of which contain an arrow at rest, and so, Zeno concludes, the arrow cannot be moving.

An immediate concern is why Zeno is justified in assuming that the arrow is at rest during any instant. It follows immediately if one assumes that an instant lasts 0s: whatever speed the arrow has, it will get nowhere if it has no time at all. But what if one held that the smallest parts of time are finite — if tiny — so that a moving arrow might actually move some distance during an instant? One way of supporting the assumption — which requires reading quite a lot into the text we have — is to assume that instants are indivisible. Then suppose that an arrow actually moved during an instant. It would be at different locations at the start and end of the instant, which implies that the instant has a ‘start’ and an ‘end’, which in turn implies that it has at least two parts, and so is divisible, and so is not an indivisible moment at all. (Note that this argument only establishes that nothing can move during an instant, not that instants cannot be finite.)

 

So motion is an illusion nothing really is in motion but because of the passage of time things appear to be in motion. So time cannot just be a measure of motion or else it would be compromised of an infinite number of 'nows' and the arrow would never get to its destination. Zeno also implies that time must be ultimately indivisible at some small level, that there must be some small unit of time which cannot be divided further into smaller levels of time or the passage of time from one second to the next would take an infinite number of steps and the second would never pass.

 

So we are left with reality being composed of a succesion of euclidean 3 spaces with time as a dimension of space tying all the other dimensions of space we experience (euclidean 3 space) together in a bundle of 4 dimensional spacetime.

 

Peace

:)

[wigglieverse]

The quantum Zeno effect is used in QM as a measurement paradigm. This "exploits" the quantum weirdness that lets a particle or superposition remain coherent, and not decay, as long as it's being observed.

 

Classical law of radioactivity has a strict exponential decay, but in quantum theory this is only approximately so; for very short times the decay probability increases as the square of the time interval; so a metastable quantum system which is frequently observed (and reset) would remain essentially unchanged. This is the Quantum Zeno effect discovered by Misra and Sudarshan (J. Math. Phys.).

--www.ph.utexas.edu/fogs/sudarshan_zeno.html

[truth_united]

Snoopy

Zeno's Argument against Motion.

 

 

I would also like to point out Zeno's famous paradox in which he discusses the impossibility of the flight of an arrow if time is just caused by things being in motion.

 

Zeno states the following.

"What is in motion moves neither in the place it is nor in one in which it is not".

 

or put more simply what is in motion doesnt move where it is now where it will be in the future or where it has been in the past.

 

.............Zeno also implies that time must be ultimately indivisible at some small level, that there must be some small unit of time which cannot be divided further into smaller levels of time or the passage of time from one second to the next would take an infinite number of steps and the second would never pass.

 

.....

 

The solution to Zeno's paradox is the illusion of continuity. This is what Zeno implies by stating that time must be indivisible at some small level. If you go through the thread "The Origin of Universe: Solving the mystery" by Durgatosh, he has also described a solution to this paradox in a similar way in his first post where he discusses the problem of overtaking vehicles. Durgatosh has gone further to state that not just time, but all fundamental entities like space, time matter, energy are discrete and not continuous. This argument has a great merit as he further uses this to affirm the impossibility of nothingness and therefore the eternal existence of the universe.

 

truth_united

[snoopy]

The solution to Zeno's paradox is the illusion of continuity. This is what Zeno implies by stating that time must be indivisible at some small level. If you go through the thread "The Origin of Universe: Solving the mystery" by Durgatosh, he has also described a solution to this paradox in a similar way in his first post where he discusses the problem of overtaking vehicles. Durgatosh has gone further to state that not just time, but all fundamental entities like space, time matter, energy are discrete and not continuous. This argument has a great merit as he further uses this to affirm the impossibility of nothingness and therefore the eternal existence of the universe.

 

truth_united

 

Yes I know im just playing games with Nieb, the way he is playing games with us

 

But Zeno's arguments are fun and interesting and Nieb Im guessing hasnt considered them.

 

But I think he should before stating things that 'time is motion'.

 

But thanks truth united for bringing Durgatosh into it as well, a more thorough essay on Durgatosh would be helpful though.

 

Thanks again.

 

Peace

:)

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

Modest said

 

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:

 

Time cannot be changed.

 

The method of measuring time can alter the communication period and thus alter time relative to what ever.

[niebieskieucho]

Consider 2 spacecraft, A and B,

...

snip

 

I will revert to this explanation and answer other posts, but I regret it cannot be earlier than at the beginning of New Year. I hope to get installed new hub at home which I am claiming now. Nevertheless, the given example does not confirm dilation of time, because you cannot dilate motion. You are mixing time with clocks. These events were pure physical ones, which couldn't be explained by clock differences as clocks are not time. Only physical forces act on clock mechanism and this is quite obvious. By the way, neither Michaelson nor Morley are not in position to exclude ether, because there is no such a tool in possession of science to give explanation of subtlety of the micro-world.

 

Have all a Blissful Christmasive Festival

:)