Cosmology needs radical transformation

[Mike C]

I agree with 'nieb' that space has just 3 dimensions and that time is motion.

 

My definition of time is: 'Uniform unwavering motion'.

So how would you define this as a dimension of time?

The best substitute for 'spacetime' is the lightyear. It can represent both space and time because it is considered to be 'uniforn unwavering motion'

This, of course, applies to the Universe. However, the professional scientists prefer the 'parsec' as their measure of distance.

 

So what element is left to measure the age of the BB universe?

You have 'none' because there is 'no way' you can measure the size of the BBU.

 

The WMAP is not a credible measure of the BBU age because it is based on the CMBR that I consider to be erroneous. Especially with a redshift of 1000.

 

Mike C

[Natural]

I think Zeno is just plain confused. "What is in motion moves neither in the place it is nor in one in which it is not". (what is the sound of one hand clapping…)

:shrug:

What he is saying is that nothing actually moves. So as an experiment let’s stand Zeno in front of an arrow that is being shot at him and see if he moves…

:D

Don’t get me wrong, I love a good philosophical paradox but this kind of thinking would run into several problems in the experimental physical world. Since we all know that energy can be transferred from atom to atom. (obviously) If force (i.e. energy) is applied to matter, the matter expels that energy with motion somewhere. (even if it's just Schrodinger's cat scratching himself inside the box) :D But of course the application of energy is motion. And on the quantum level all matter is continuously in motion. So even if the motion is that of a quantum of energy being “moved” out of the atom it is still motion. Plus what Zeno is actually doing is applying time as a quantified dimension to space and that is the whole reason that he is having problems with motion.

In other words, arrows don’t move through time, they move through space. (because they are physical and space is a physical set of dimensions) And time is what we perceive to be “passing” during the process of that motion. (because we are observing time and space together but separately) But even if there was no one there to perceive it something would still physically move. Which makes it all sound like time really has nothing to do with motion. It just happens to be there, unconnected. :D But conversely that would mean that with the perception of motion there is also the perception of time. And the only real proof of time and space being connected would be to stop time, in which case, if time and space were inexorably connected, you would have to also be stopping space. (i.e. making it non-existent)

Now that would be some experiment!

So I would speculate that space is connected with physicality and time is not, because matter needs 3 dimensions in which to exist but time doesn’t exist in those dimensions. And since it is not connected with the physical dimensions, if time stopped there would be no physical reason that matter would fall out of existence. Therefore time can only be somehow connected with the motion of that physicality but not the motionlessness of it. Making it sound like time and motion are connected.

:)

I think I need to go meditate after all that... (or is that "medicate"...)

[CraigD]

The best substitute for 'spacetime' is the lightyear. It can represent both space and time because it is considered to be 'uniforn unwavering motion'

This, of course, applies to the Universe. However, the professional scientists prefer the 'parsec' as their measure of distance.

The lightyear is simply a unit of distance, no different in kind than the meter – although unlike the meter, the lightyear is less consensually defined. While an “official” lightyear might be considered the IAU’s recommended value of 9460730472580800 meters, other common sources use slightly different values. The parsec is traditionally used as an even less precise unit of distance, as its value depends on such imprecisely known values as the semi-major axis of the Earth’s orbit, and the distance to various distant “background” stars.

 

The presence of the word “year” (a unit of time) in “lightyear” doesn’t mean it can be used as a unit of time. Such use is one of the more common mistakes in poorly researched fiction, common and poetic speech, such as in one of my favorite songs:

And here I sit

Hand on the telephone

Hearing a voice I'd known

A couple of light years ago

Heading straight for a fall

Despite its promotion of scientific misunderstanding, using “light year” poetically to mean something like “year, but feels like much, much longer” remains as irresistible now as it does when Joan Baez did it 30 some years ago. :rolleyes:

[snoopy]

I think Zeno is just plain confused. "What is in motion moves neither in the place it is nor in one in which it is not". (what is the sound of one hand clapping…)

:D

What he is saying is that nothing actually moves. So as an experiment let’s stand Zeno in front of an arrow that is being shot at him and see if he moves…

 

Current einsteinian or gallielan relativity states nothing ever really moves its just one stationary frame of space that moves through time

 

So I would speculate that space is connected with physicality and time is not, because matter needs 3 dimensions in which to exist but time doesn’t exist in those dimensions. And since it is not connected with the physical dimensions, if time stopped there would be no physical reason that matter would fall out of existence. Therefore time can only be somehow connected with the motion of that physicality but not the motionlessness of it. Making it sound like time and motion are connected.

 

Time has to connected with all dimensions of space.

 

Motion is an illusion.

Time and space are real.

So yah boo sucks to you :rolleyes:

TV and Movies are the same its just one stationary image flipping through to the next giving us the illusion of motion.

Color Illusory Motion

Peace

;)

[Natural]

Current einsteinian or gallielan relativity states nothing ever really moves its just one stationary frame of space that moves through time

 

 

 

Time has to connected with all dimensions of space.

 

Motion is an illusion.

Time and space are real.

So yah boo sucks to you ;)

TV and Movies are the same its just one stationary image flipping through to the next giving us the illusion of motion.

 

Peace

:)

 

But that's just it... neither time nor space "have to" connect with anything. And all I ask is that you prove your (or Einstein's) theory by showing the connection point of space or time. And by telling me the method and action of connection with matter. (is it magic and invisible?):D

Which part of an atom connects with space or time?

And for that matter which part of gravity connects with space in order to "bend" it? And if it does, what exactly is bending? Like I said before, the act of bending is to apply energy to something causing it to change it's structure. But you have to have a physical structure first.

It always gets me laughing when I hear someone referring to "the fabric of space". (is that cotton or nylon?)

:hihi:

Very two dimensional thinking.

:(

[freeztar]

Please note that most of my comments are from a Relativity bias rather than Quantum gravity or String Theory.

 

But that's just it... neither time nor space "have to" connect with anything. And all I ask is that you prove your (or Einstein's) theory by showing the connection point of space or time. And by telling me the method and action of connection with matter. (is it magic and invisible?):(

 

"The connection point of space or time", "the method and action of connection with matter", "magic or invisible?"; These are all phrases that are very subjective, unscientific, and/or do not discount any theory (Einstein was mentioned). These phrases do not help convey meaningful ideas and as such are liable to invoke disoriented replies and general misconception. Perhaps rephrasing some of these ideas would shed more light upon what you are trying to convey.

 

Which part of an atom connects with space or time?

 

A better question would be, which part doesn't?

 

And for that matter which part of gravity connects with space in order to "bend" it? And if it does, what exactly is bending?

 

"Which part of gravity" is one of those phrases I mentioned above.

 

The hypothetical graviton is one example of a mass/gravity "virtual particle". (that is extreme oversimplification, but the wiki link deals with this in more detail).

 

Also, gravity does not "bend" space. Mass "bends" space-time.

Gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Like I said before, the act of bending is to apply energy to something causing it to change it's structure. But you have to have a physical structure first.

Can you explain this a little better please? (specifically the energy application and how it applies to gravity)

It always gets me laughing when I hear someone referring to "the fabric of space". (is that cotton or nylon?)

;)

Very two dimensional thinking.

:hihi:

 

It's cotton, because it "stretches", xy and z. :)

[modest]

Like I said before, the act of bending is to apply energy to something causing it to change it's structure. But you have to have a physical structure first.

It always gets me laughing when I hear someone referring to "the fabric of space".

 

For many hundreds of years this has been proven in many different ways. Would you have 2 stars separated by the vacuum of space NOT be connected? You would suggest that space devoid of baryonic matter is nothing?

 

In the 1600's it was first understood that light was a wave that propagates through something (they named æther). Theories of light before Einstein, before Max Planck, and before the industrial revolution understood this.

 

Also in the 1600's an apple fell either on or very near Isaac Newton's head. He realized that something connected the apple to the earth called gravity. Theories of gravity (either quantum, relativistic, or newtonian) demonstrate a connection between two masses through the vacuum of space.

 

In the 1900's quantum mechanics describes the zero point energy present at every point in space. Indeed, there is an enormous amount of vacuum energy when all matter or other energy is absent. This is a result of quantum fields present in all of space time. The direct result of this can be seen in the casimir effect.

 

All four fundamental forces rely on spacetime being connected everywhere - not just gravity - and not just general relativity. Understand that when you speculate the absence of 'the fabric of spacetime' in space you are not at odds with relativity; you are at odds with physics.

 

- modest

[snoopy]

All four fundamental forces rely on spacetime being connected everywhere - not just gravity - and not just general relativity. Understand that when you speculate the absence of 'the fabric of spacetime' in space you are not at odds with relativity; you are at odds with physics.

 

- modest

 

 

Yes indeed well put.

 

Peace

;)

[Mike C]

The lightyear is simply a unit of distance, no different in kind than the meter – although unlike the meter, the lightyear is less consensually defined. While an “official” lightyear might be considered the IAU’s recommended value of 9460730472580800 meters, other common sources use slightly different values. The parsec is traditionally used as an even less precise unit of distance, as its value depends on such imprecisely known values as the semi-major axis of the Earth’s orbit, and the distance to various distant “background” stars.

 

The presence of the word “year” (a unit of time) in “lightyear” doesn’t mean it can be used as a unit of time. Such use is one of the more common mistakes in poorly researched fiction, common and poetic speech, such as in one of my favorite songs:

And here I sit

Hand on the telephone

Hearing a voice I'd known

A couple of light years ago

Heading straight for a fall

Despite its promotion of scientific misunderstanding, using “light year” poetically to mean something like “year, but feels like much, much longer” remains as irresistible now as it does when Joan Baez did it 30 some years ago. ;)

 

I know the 'standard' unit for time is the 'second'.

 

But that applies to our solar system here in our local environment.

But what unit should be used for the Universe?

 

Mike C

[modest]

I know the 'standard' unit for time is the 'second'.

 

But that applies to our solar system here in our local environment.

But what unit should be used for the Universe?

 

Mike C

 

Time is a fundamental quantity in nature or physics - like space or mass. This means it cannot be defined by the magnitude or measurement of something more basic. The fundamental quantities must be measured by units that are somewhat arbitrary. You can use a second, hour, day, fortnight, or the julian year. All subsequent calculations done with this fundamental quantity will be based on this initial choice of how to measure time. For instance:

[math]1 Newton = 1\frac{{kg}\times{m}}{s^2}[/math]

 

A newton is a derived unit of force. The unit 'newton' depends on the fundamental quantities of mass, time, and space. We could also talk about force in terms of foot pounds per second (or hour) squared. The units of force depend on other, more fundamental, units.

 

So, whatever unit you choose to measure time or space is not going to be based on something more basic about the universe; and, calculations done with the data will depend on or carry the chosen unit.

 

-modest

[CraigD]

I know the 'standard' unit for time is the 'second'.

 

But that applies to our solar system here in our local environment.

But what unit should be used for the Universe?

The second can be used to measure time in any context, as can any other precisely defined unit.

 

As Modest notes, there are three fundamental quantities in physics: length (AKA “position”, “space”, etc.); mass; and time. Commonly used units of each are meters; kilograms (for purely conventional reasons, kilograms are usually preferred to their base unit, grams); and seconds – commonly known as the MKS system of units Any other unit can be defined in terms of these three.

[Natural]

"The connection point of space or time", "the method and action of connection with matter", "magic or invisible?"; These are all phrases that are very subjective, unscientific, and/or do not discount any theory (Einstein was mentioned). These phrases do not help convey meaningful ideas and as such are liable to invoke disoriented replies and general misconception. Perhaps rephrasing some of these ideas would shed more light upon what you are trying to convey.

 

I agree with the part about "disoriented replies"...

:D

First of all the phrase "method and action of connection" is a scientific phrase. They are the results gained from analysis of the functioning of a system. That's what scientist do... they discover the method and action of reactions or connections in this case. You can't get more specific without actually referring to the objects of study in an experiment. If you don't understand how these phrases are used in a scientific manner maybe you should take a few chemistry classes.

So what I was referring to is the quantum actions and reactions that take place in the transfer of energy or force.

But since "space" has no quantum particles there could be no actions or reactions to be studied. All actions and reactions that physics or any other branch of science can study or experiment upon are that of matter. (and it's subatomic particles) Of course field theories are another discussion but they are also only concerned with the transfer of energy from one particle of matter to another. (following the field lines)

 

A better question would be, which part doesn't?

 

The answer is "every part doesn't".

 

"Which part of gravity" is one of those phrases I mentioned above.

 

The hypothetical gravitation is one example of a mass/gravity "virtual particle". (that is extreme oversimplification, but the wiki link deals with this in more detail).

 

I think you were referring to a "graviton particle" but the important word here is "hypothetical" which is proving my point.

 

Also, gravity does not "bend" space. Mass "bends" space-time.

 

And how does mass bend anything without energetically and physically connecting with it. (i.e. transfer of energy from one atom to another) Without matter you have no mass or gravitation. Gravity can bend the path of a vectored particle but has no way of attracting space into a bent structure because space has no vector to bend.

I'm still waiting for someone to offer the specifics of the physical, gravitational, or quantum interaction between a particle of matter and space.

Show me a charge, or quantum energy fluctuation that can be applied to a particle of space.

 

Can you explain this a little better please? (specifically the energy application and how it applies to gravity)

 

What I was saying is that gravity does not function with the transfer of energy, mass does. But mass has to transfer that energy specifically to other mass. Gravity functions on another level. But even "gravity particles" (whatever they may be) would still have to have a transfer, and function with some kind of "force-like" action. But this only happens between particles of atomic matter. (i.e. the apple and the earth)

If space is differentiated from atomic matter, as it obviously is not only by nomenclature but by matters very existence, then the action of gravity and force are both only concerned with mass, not space.

 

It's cotton, because it "stretches", xy and z. :beer:

Don't forget cloth is so flat that it is nearly 2 dimensional. (as in thinking) :D

Whereas space is 3 dimensional. It has no surface, no front or back, and nothing to stretch, and no where to stretch it except into itself.

:)

For a very different and yet completely valid theory of gravity you should read

Gravitation: Master Key to the Universe by Karel Havel. It has some very interesting explanations of some of the current hypothesizes of gravitational interactions as well as relativity theories.

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

I was reading through these links on time, maybe of interest for some.

 

Time, Clocks and Causality

Time, Clocks and Causality

 

Causality, Measurement and Space

Causality, Measurement and Space

 

Distance - Time - Relativity

Distance - Time - Relativity

 

Einstein's Special Relativity

Time Dilation, Lorentz Contraction, and Other Relativity Effects

Einstein's Special Relativity: Time Dilation, Lorentz Contraction, and Other Relativity Effects

 

 

Time travel????????? 55 links

Excite UK - Science - Physics - Relativity - Time Travel

 

Space Time and Relativity

Free Essay Space Time and Relativity

 

Empty space-time, general relativity principle

and covariant ether theories

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0501/0501060.pdf

 

Space-Time,Relativity, andCosmology

http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/22800/frontmatter/9780521822800_frontmatter.pdf

 

 

 

Time after time "TIME" has been used in many different ways and this reminds me of the chinese whisper, one story when told from one to the other down the line the story takes up a new meaning.

 

If you are interested in more links just ask.

[Natural]

First I would like to say that I don't hold any ill feelings toward anyone here and thoroughly enjoy the back and forth questions and theories. And though it might appear that we are arguing about a topic I see it more as a bunch of intelligent people sitting around a table throwing in ideas like a good card game.

:D

For many hundreds of years this has been proven in many different ways. Would you have 2 stars separated by the vacuum of space NOT be connected? You would suggest that space devoid of baryonic matter is nothing?

I would suggest that anything "devoid" of everything is nothing. But can even the science of today say with surety that the "vacuum" of space is devoid of everything? And if it is not devoid then what is it that occupies that space and what kind of interactions does it have with matter? Where does dark matter and dark energy reside? Until these questions are answered there will be no real proven theories to explain gravity. And therefore the curvature of space time is meaningless.

 

In the 1600's it was first understood that light was a wave that propagates through something (they named æther). Theories of light before Einstein, before Max Planck, and before the industrial revolution understood this.

 

If we don't know what is occupying "space" how can you assume that it is space that is doing the propagating?

Somewhere in here I should probably talk about J.S.Bell and the locality of connections. (but I won't):):beer:

 

Also in the 1600's an apple fell either on or very near Isaac Newton's head. He realized that something connected the apple to the earth called gravity. Theories of gravity (either quantum, relativistic, or newtonian) demonstrate a connection between two masses through the vacuum of space.

 

But neither object needed anything to connect them besides proximity. Not to mention that the apple fell through gas, not a vacuum. And even if you apply this to planets, gravity doesn't need space to connect objects together. And in the absence of any better metaphor for, or explanation of gravity, vectored "gravity particles" would travel in a straight line from one object of mass to another. (as all vectored particles do)

 

In the 1900's quantum mechanics describes the zero point energy present at every point in space. Indeed, there is an enormous amount of vacuum energy when all matter or other energy is absent. This is a result of quantum fields present in all of space time. The direct result of this can be seen in the casimir effect.

 

Concerning the Casimir effect, I would say that until you can exactly specify the quantum effects of gravity that it would be hard to explain the attraction of two reflective objects. But the vacuum between them is the least likely thing to be attracting them. If it did then why would they be attracted toward each other and not the vacuum itself. Therefore as in everything else the vacuum of space is not even part of the experiment.

And the key word that you used in this statement is "in" referring to "space time". If it is "in" it, it is not necessarily part of it. Vacuum energy is specified as such because it is separate from matter, other forms of energy, electromagnetic force or anything else for that matter. But it is something that is occupying space, and is not part of it. That would be like saying that light in a light bulb is part of the bulb.

 

All four fundamental forces rely on spacetime being connected everywhere - not just gravity - and not just general relativity. Understand that when you speculate the absence of 'the fabric of spacetime' in space you are not at odds with relativity; you are at odds with physics.

- modest

The problem with physics today is that large parts of it are based on how it relates to relativity. Many theories focus their hypothesis on their mathematical ability to be one more proof of the general theory of relativity. And I'm not saying that Einstein was an idiot. On the contrary he was a qualified genius but he also had the ability to be wrong on some matters. After all he didn't want to accept the fact that the universe was expanding and theorized a "cosmological constant" to explain something that he couldn't accept.:D

But the fact that physics is still searching for a Grand Unified Theory is some indication that the reliance on "space time being connected" may be part of the problem and not part of the solution.

I don't claim to be an expert but what I am saying mainly is that there are still too many BIG unknowns in physics today to be able to say that one theory that relies on properties that are still unknown, is absolutely correct and to base everything else on it.

:)

And as I mentioned in an earlier post today, I would recommend reading the book Gravitation: Master Key to the Universe by Karel Havel. It is a very interesting and completely different explanation of gravity.

[Mike C]

Modest and Craig

 

I am talking about measuring the Universe.

 

So how do you measure the distance to the Virgo Cluster?

 

Do you use Newtons?

 

The way I see it, you use either the redshifts of the objects or some standards like Cephied Variables, Angular sizes and etc

 

Mike C

[CraigD]

So how do you measure the distance to the Virgo Cluster?

 

Do you use Newtons?

In the MKS system, you use meters. The distance to the Virgo cluster is estimated to be about [math]5.6 \times 10^{23}[/math] (560000000000000000000000) meters.

 

The Newton is a unit of force. It’s not the right unit for measuring a distance.

 

In terms of the 3 fundimental quantities, Force = Mass x (Distance/Time)/Time.

 

In the MKS system, 1 Newton = 1 kilogram x 1 meter / 1 second / 1 second.

The way I see it, you use either the redshifts of the objects or some standards like Cephied Variables, Angular sizes and etc

The technique used to measure a distance doesn’t affect the distance, or require that a particular unit be used. You’re free to chose from any length unit – mega-parsecs, meters, inches, whatever – but distances must be measured in distance units.

[modest]

Natural,

 

The only argument I've seen you give so far goes like this:

Spacetime cannot be bent and therefore cause gravity because space is devoid of most ordinary matter. It is empty and therefore 'nothing' and cannot exist to be bent. In your words:

 

Like I said before, the act of bending is to apply energy to something causing it to change it's structure. But you have to have a physical structure first.

It always gets me laughing when I hear someone referring to "the fabric of space".

 

or

 

I would suggest that anything "devoid" of everything is nothing.

 

So, Why must a vacuum be a void of non-existence? Why can it not be a state or property of the universe at some particular spot? You have given no reason for this assumption. My previous post shows some properties of the vacuum demonstrating the existence of something where there is no baryonic matter. Why must we reject modern physics to make your assumption true? You have given no reason or evidence or explanation.

 

- modest