Cosmology needs radical transformation

[Mike C]

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 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.

 

You are using the SI unit for the distance that is determined 'after' you use the 'method'.

I was referring to the methods used to measure the universe. Granted, the meter is the SI unit used for measuring space so in a way you may be right. But when thinking about the Universe, it is more practical to think in light years since light © is a fixed value just like the meter.

 

Incidentally, the meter is a standard dimension that is fixed by a platinum(?) bar in France.

 

Mike C

[CraigD]

Incidentally, the meter is a standard dimension that is fixed by a platinum(?) bar in France.

That standard, completed in 1889 and known as the International Prototype Metre, was replaced in 1960 by one based on an atomic emission line (1,650,763.73 wavelengths of one of the lines of krypton-86). Between 1791 and 1889, it was defined as 1/10000000 the overland distance from the equator to the north pole (a rather difficult standard to actually measure!)

 

In 1983, the current standard – the distance light travels in vacuum in 1/299792458 seconds - was adopted.

 

All this is commonplace science history, well described in many encyclopedias and textbooks, including the wikipedia articles “meter” and “second”.

 

The current meter standard has an added advantage of making the speed of light a precise value, but a disadvantage of needing a very precise standard for the second. Not coincidentally, advances in atomic clock technology before and since the 1980s make a highly precise second standard (9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom) possible – though belief that such a standard is possible requires the acceptance of some theory agreeing in large part with quantum mechanics.

 

PS: I fear the discussion of fundamental physical quantities and unit standards has strayed off this threads topic. If there are no objections, I’ll extract them from this thread into one of their own.

[Mike C]

That standard, completed in 1889 and known as the International Prototype Metre, was replaced in 1960 by one based on an atomic emission line (1,650,763.73 wavelengths of one of the lines of krypton-86). Between 1791 and 1889, it was defined as 1/10000000 the overland distance from the equator to the north pole (a rather difficult standard to actually measure!)

 

In 1983, the current standard – the distance light travels in vacuum in 1/299792458 seconds - was adopted.

 

All this is commonplace science history, well described in many encyclopedias and textbooks, including the wikipedia articles “meter” and “second”.

 

The current meter standard has an added advantage of making the speed of light a precise value, but a disadvantage of needing a very precise standard for the second. Not coincidentally, advances in atomic clock technology before and since the 1980s make a highly precise second standard (9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom) possible – though belief that such a standard is possible requires the acceptance of some theory agreeing in large part with quantum mechanics.

 

PS: I fear the discussion of fundamental physical quantities and unit standards has strayed off this threads topic. If there are no objections, I’ll extract them from this thread into one of their own.

 

No need to. Your article here is an update on todays science standards. So, it is a related topic to Cosmology.

Thanks.

 

Mike C

[EWright]

Theory of Temporal Relativity - Part I

 

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

 

As science strives to bridge the gap between the micro of the quantum and the macro of the cosmos, we must of course examine at what point the laws between these two dualities break down. But perhaps more importantly, we must ask what binds the two together into one harmonious universe; what is the common denominator? The answer, it seems, should be the one thing that permeates the whole of the universe on all levels: the macro and the micro; the three known physical dimensions; as well as the past, the present and the future, with the most uniformity and consistency. Special Relativity is based on the fact that we measure the speed of light as a constant and as the maximum obtainable speed in the universe. However, there are no physical properties of light that cause clocks of faster moving objects to run slower; and so the notion of the speed of light as a determining factor as to why this happen, should be reconsidered.

 

This paper is not intended to dispute the accuracy of Special Relativity. I believe the predictions are accurate, as tests have shown. Rather, my purpose here is to suggest that there is a fundamental property of the universe that is more directly responsible for relativistic phenomena than light, and which is also the true constant and limiting-factor for the speed of light. I also believe that unrealized dynamics of this fundamental property may hold the solution to some of the unanswered questions in physics, as I will discuss in subsequent articles; but first a basis for these discussions is necessary. What follows is the first step in my attempt to more thoroughly define the nature of time and its applications to physics and cosmology, in what I call the Theory of Temporal Relativity.

 

Temporal Relativity (Part I)

 

Isaac Newton believed that time was constant, while Albert Einstein warped time to mold it into a universe in which light travels at a constant speed. I would argue that both are correct. While that may seem implausible at first, consider my argument that time is actually multidimensional - both constant and variable. And these two types of time, as well as others I will define, are completely different things.

 

The logic for reintroducing an absolute variable of time is simple: On the largest scale scientists have assigned a single verifiable age of 13.7 billion years to the whole of the universe. This age is based on precise measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) using NASA’s most sophisticated equipment to date. This single universal age demands that essentially all matter and energy contained within the framework of the universe have existed in some form for this precise amount of time; no more or less is possible on a universal scale. After all, there was only one beginning of time according to most major theories and there is only one present-time for the whole of the universe as well. Therefore one absolute measurable amount of time, has passed from the birth of the universe until the present. However, to express this age we use a unit of time to say the universe has existed for 13.7 billion years.

 

It is these measurable man-made units of time that are variable, as described by Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity. However, Einstein described these units as variable relative to light speed. Temporal Relativity, on the other hand, describes them as variable within the framework of, and relative to, the larger fixed universal-time frame described above. Within this framework matter, energy, units of length, and units of time all advance in time by moving variably through universal-time, based on their relative speeds. Universal-time, on the other hand, advances in measurable units of time, but does so at a uniform rate for the whole of the universe, which is supported by the consistent age and uniformity of the CMB. Essentially, universal time is the very axis along which measurable units of time contort.

 

Now, armed with a general understanding of these two dimensions of time, let’s examine where the differences originate from and how they came to be. All theories must address the beginning of time as best they can, and Temporal Relativity attempts to do just that by introducing two additional and practical dimensions to time. The first of these is what existed before the beginning of time as we know it - that is, a singular dimension of time that I refer to as absolute-zero time.

 

This is a static period before time as we know it sprang into existence, in which all dimensions of time existed equally with no arrow toward the future, but with the potential for such direction. At this point all time and energy existed in a completely uniform state. Such a starting point is essential in order to currently apply one attributable amount of time to the universe as a whole. This homogenous state can apply to a singularity type of object, which could have given rise to a big bang; or it could apply to an infinite expanse that is void of matter, as in Brane Theory. It is not relevant to discuss how long such a state may have existed, because no measurable time existed - time had no forward direction. However it does make sense to assume that the potential for measurable-time and energy existed at absolute-zero time. Any catalyst that would disrupt this homogenous state would simultaneously give rise to time as well as an imbalance in, and release of, potential time and energy. Such a catalyst could come in the form of contact with a neighboring brane (Brane Theory), decay or imbalance in the “singularity” (Big Bang Theory), or the phrase “Let there be light” (Creation).

 

Whatever the catalyst, one thing is clear: since zero-time, the past has moved into the future at a rate that has now amounted to 13.7 billion years as defined by our measurable units of time. This means that universal-time, while moving toward the future, must do so at a particular rate or speed. This may seem contradictory, since the definition of speed is generally measured in terms of time itself. So how can we define the rate of time in terms of a rate of speed, which by definition depends on a distance traveled over a specific time? This is possible because we are defining universal time in terms of its smaller measurable units of time.

 

The relationship between these two brings to light another dimension of time, the rate at which the future unfolds or present arrives, which I call the future-time horizon. Fortunately, nature has provided us a measuring stick with which scientists have already measured and verified the rate at which the future becomes the ever-glancing present. And what they have unknowingly found is that the future arrives at a continuous and precise speed of 186,000 miles per second. Thus, the yardstick by which we measure time’s horizon is the photon, and the reason light travels at this constant speed is that it is limited by the constant rate at which time unfolds. So in essence, time is the medium upon which light flows.

 

With the understanding that the future-time horizon arrives at this constant speed, the physical reason faster moving objects experience less time becomes clear with no need for light as a contributing factor. That is, the faster an object moves in relation to the rate of future time, the less of time’s affects, or aging, it will experience; and thus, the less measurable-time it will experience. This can be likened to the stress on a boat moving against the flow of the river, compared to a craft moving with the flow. Thus, the faster an object is traveling, the more it is moving with, or keeping up with, the flow of future-time; and the less severe the rush of measurable-time against it will be, or the less it will age. Stated another way, measured-time’s variability results from the relative speed of motion between two objects or observers within the universal framework. This also explains why our measurable units of time vary between different observers traveling at significantly different speeds but remain constant for each locally.

 

In regard to current physics, it’s important to understand that the rate at which Temporal Relativity states that time unfolds is precisely the same constant figure at which we measure the speed of light. Therefore any experiment that confirms Special Relativity as it relates to light speed, must also confirm Temporal Relativity to precisely the same specifications. This means that Temporal Relativity already holds true for any experiments, predictions or observations relating to Special Relativity. However, it is my position that Temporal Relativity is capable of explaining the cause behind some phenomena more accurately than previous theories. I will shed light on some of these additional phenomena in the days and weeks to come.

[modest]

Special Relativity is based on the fact that we measure the speed of light as a constant and as the maximum obtainable speed in the universe. However, there are no physical properties of light that cause clocks of faster moving objects to run slower; and so the notion of the speed of light as a determining factor as to why this happen, should be reconsidered.

 

The speed of light owes nothing to a photon. A photon does not cause the speed of light - any massless particle must travel at the speed of light. As Qfwfq would say: The velocity of light in vacuo is c, but c isn't just the velocity of light.

 

The logic for reintroducing an absolute variable of time is simple: On the largest scale scientists have assigned a single verifiable age of 13.7 billion years to the whole of the universe. This age is based on precise measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) using NASA’s most sophisticated equipment to date.

 

Neither general relativity nor special relativity place the universe at this 'absolute age'. When considering special relativity a reference frame must be considered. Two particles that have been in relative motion since the big bang have experienced different time. The CMBR is a great reference frame and a particle that has been still relative to the CMBR would have experienced a close proper time approximation to 13.7 billion years. But, this is relative.

 

In general relativity time is also relative. A particle in a gravity well will have experienced a different amount of time since the big bang as a particle near no gravitational field. In GR models of the universe a person can consider spacetime as homogeneous. We can slice the 4D surface so that the manifold has homogeneous matter content. All content on this surface can then be said to have the same proper time since the big bang. But, this kind of global time is idealized. Given this, I don't think the further conclusions you make can be well-founded, such as:

 

This single universal age demands that essentially all matter and energy contained within the framework of the universe have existed in some form for this precise amount of time; no more or less is possible on a universal scale. After all, there was only one beginning of time according to most major theories and there is only one present-time for the whole of the universe as well.

 

Even if your stopwatch is outside the universe, this statement still can't be true as everything in the universe experiences different proper time relative to other things in the universe.

 

- modest

[EWright]

The speed of light owes nothing to a photon. A photon does not cause the speed of light - any massless particle must travel at the speed of light. As Qfwfq would say: The velocity of light in vacuo is c, but c isn't just the velocity of light.

 

You are right… yet the speed of light is the postulate upon which Einstein bases Special Relativity.

 

Neither general relativity nor special relativity place the universe at this 'absolute age'. When considering special relativity a reference frame must be considered. Two particles that have been in relative motion since the big bang have experienced different time. The CMBR is a great reference frame and a particle that has been still relative to the CMBR would have experienced a close proper time approximation to 13.7 billion years. But, this is relative.

 

I didn’t say that SR or GR were the basis of this measurement. And how do you propose a particle has been still relative to the CMBR exactly? This statement contradicts the basis of relative motion. Agreed, time is relative. Agreed on a global proper time… I never suggested otherwise… this is the 13.7Gy figure in the global-universal sense.

 

In general relativity time is also relative. A particle in a gravity well will have experienced a different amount of time since the big bang as a particle near no gravitational field. In GR models of the universe a person can consider spacetime as homogeneous. We can slice the 4D surface so that the manifold has homogeneous matter content. All content on this surface can then be said to have the same proper time since the big bang. But, this kind of global time is idealized. Given this, I don't think the further conclusions you make can be well-founded, such as:

 

 

 

Even if your stopwatch is outside the universe, this statement still can't be true as everything in the universe experiences different proper time relative to other things in the universe.

 

- modest

 

There is no “outside of the universe,” so this statement is irrelevant. While it is true that all objects have experienced different amounts of time, they all exist in the present at the same universal time of the universe. This is akin to comparing a newborn and its grandparent, both existing in the same space and time. They are different ages, but they both exist ‘now’.

[Mike C]

Modest and Wright:

 

1 - The BBT is not credible because the galactic redshift observations of the 1920's were interpreted as Doppler that was refuted and replaced with the 'subjective' idea of the 'expansion of space'.

So there is no real science to support the BBT.

 

2 - The velocity of light © is not an absolute standard.

Although I introduced the 'light year' as a suitable unit for measuring the universe, there are slight variations to 'c'.

The reason for this is that light travels through the EM fields and these fields move with the light sources that emit the photons. So the local space velocities of these light sources has to be included to the emitted photons. This can be easily corrected by observations of the spiral galxies on opposite sides to correct for the determined local space velocities and © for the redshift of these galaxies.

 

3 - The CMBR is not a BB remnant.

It is a thermolized qualibrium temperature that complies with the 2nd Law of Thermdynamics.

An added proof of this is the McKellar observations in 1940 of a interstellar particle with a temperature of 2.3K that preceded the Gamow et al prediction of this remnant radiation.

More proof of this would be that this radiation from the BBT matter period would be contaminated by plasma radiation to prevent the idea of a perfect black body radiation.

 

Mike C

[modest]

You are right… yet the speed of light is the postulate upon which Einstein bases Special Relativity.

 

Yes, but maybe we are defining 'the speed of light' differently. It is a speed and a constant of the universe not depending on 'light'. Calling it maximum-speed or massless-speed would be less problematic maybe.

 

I didn’t say that SR or GR were the basis of this measurement. And how do you propose a particle has been still relative to the CMBR exactly? This statement contradicts the basis of relative motion.

 

A particle in the CMBR's reference frame will be motionless relative to the hubble flow. The CMBR would be equally redshifted isotropically or in all directions. A particle with great relative speed to the CMBR would observe blueshifted CMBR in the forward direction of motion and greatly redshifted CMBR behind. I think I've heard the milky way's motion relative to the hubble flow is 600 km/s, but I'm not too sure of this.

 

While it is true that all objects have experienced different amounts of time, they all exist in the present at the same universal time of the universe.

 

This is contrary to relativity. Events that are simultaneous in frame A may not be simultaneous in frame B. So, I don't see how you define a universal present time for everything in the universe. If you're going to use this as a postulate for a theory, I think you're going to have to define how you get it. In a universe full of clocks - which keeps this universal time?

 

-modest

[Natural]

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:

 

or

 

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

I get what you're saying. So let me state a few more basic "facts". (i.e. theories... however you choose to see them)

States and properties must apply to something. Otherwise there is no reference point.

A vacuum is only a vacuum if there was something not a vacuum to use as a reference point.

Something that is not a vacuum is a "something". So if there is something in an area it is not a true vacuum.

In order to take action on something there must be something there to take action on. Because "action" is only concerned with physical objects. (i.e. matter or the charges of electromagnetic fields and their actions on matter)

So if the current thinking is that "space-time", which is differentiated from matter, energy, or even dark matter or energy, can be "bent", then I was just asking specifically how gravity or mass is doing the bending and what is it that is bending on a quantum scale.

In other words, if you have an atom, and that atom has mass, and therefore evidently causes gravitational attraction, what is the quantum interaction taking place that would cause bending of space-time? Where do the gravitons or vacuuons or whatever you want to call a particle of gravity attach to a "point in space" in order to bend it? (and by the term "point in space" I am not referring to any "something" that is occupying that space but an actual particle of the dimension of space-time that Einstein says can be bent)

If mass/gravity can bend space-time then someone should be able to hand you some space-time and you take some mass and show that it is now bent.

Of course now you are saying, "you can't hand someone some space-time...".

Which is my point exactly. You can't physically bend dimensions. You can only vary your view of them from your "relative" position in them "relative" to another object in them. But it is not the dimensions that are bent, it is your view of them from where you are. (relatively speaking...) :P

So if you can see a star which is actually behind the sun it is not the space around the sun that is bent, it is the trajectory of the photon's motion that is bent by the gravitational attraction of the mass of the sun. Because stars don't just send one beam of photons out, they send photons out in all possible directions simultaneously. One stream of which reaches the observer's eye. If the sun was not there, that specific photon would not have reached your eye. It would have traveled off in a straight line "above your head".

Does that make sense?

:)

I fully believe that if Einstein would have developed a quantum theory of gravitation that he would have recanted any idea that space could be bent.

;)

[modest]

Yes Natural,

I see what you're saying. There are a lot of people that share your sentiment. GR doesn't feel right to them. I honestly cannot say why as I don't feel that way. Perhaps it is too far outside everyday experiences or too abstract. Personally, I see no reason why mass/energy/momentum cannot change the geometry of space and time. This seems more complete and natural to me than an unknown force that acts at a distance. It explains so much that has since been found true. It is easily the best theory of gravity we humans have devised. Our best evidence supports it and our best experts accept it.

 

If something else is going on it sure is doing a good job of imitating curved spacetime... with black holes, time dilation, etc. In fact, I think you and I would probably agree that GR is the best theory at explaining what is observed - we just feel different about how real it seems - and that's ok.

 

- modest

[EWright]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EWright You are right… yet the speed of light is the postulate upon which Einstein bases Special Relativity.

Yes, but maybe we are defining 'the speed of light' differently. It is a speed and a constant of the universe not depending on 'light'.

 

 

Precisely, and hence the meaning of the quote that is my signature, and the basis of my Theory of Temporal Relativity.

 

Originally Posted by EWright I didn’t say that SR or GR were the basis of this measurement. And how do you propose a particle has been still relative to the CMBR exactly? This statement contradicts the basis of relative motion.

 

A particle in the CMBR's reference frame will be motionless relative to the hubble flow. The CMBR would be equally redshifted isotropically or in all directions. A particle with great relative speed to the CMBR would observe blueshifted CMBR in the forward direction of motion and greatly redshifted CMBR behind. I think I've heard the milky way's motion relative to the hubble flow is 600 km/s, but I'm not too sure of this.

 

I don’t think so. There are some outright contradictions in your description. A particle located anywhere in the universe is at an equal “distance” from the CMBR and will measure the universe at the same age relative to and based on the CMBR. The CMBR is a point in time, not in location. You cannot be equally redshifted isotropically in all directions AND have a blueshift relative to the same “location”.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by EWright While it is true that all objects have experienced different amounts of time, they all exist in the present at the same universal time of the universe.

This is contrary to relativity. Events that are simultaneous in frame A may not be simultaneous in frame B. So, I don't see how you define a universal present time for everything in the universe. If you're going to use this as a postulate for a theory, I think you're going to have to define how you get it. In a universe full of clocks - which keeps this universal time?

 

 

I do this in my Theory of Temporal Relativity; you may want to re-read it. Think of the universal clock as a river, with various clocks swirling at different rates of time within it. The full of the river exists at once, while individual portions flow at various speeds. However, they are all contained within the larger entity.

[CraigD]

In other words, if you have an atom, and that atom has mass, and therefore evidently causes gravitational attraction, what is the quantum interaction taking place that would cause bending of space-time?

To the best of my knowledge, according to best accepted current theory, the answer to this question is “we don't know”.

 

The well-validated standard model of quantum mechanical particle physics does not explain gravity. It's been a very useful and amazingly successful theory despite this, because, compared to the other 3 fundamental forces (strong, electromagnetic, and weak), it's tremendously weak (see the preceding link).

 

Generations of effort have gone into expanding the standard model to include gravity. So far, though yielding many interesting conclusions and directions for further investigation, none of this effort has succeeded in its goal. They've given us a well-recognized term for a boson to carry the gravitational force - the graviton - but as yet, no experimentally testable predictions about this particle (of which I'm aware), or even compelling argument that it exists.

 

Relativity, as has been many times mentioned in these forums and a wealth of popular literature, is, like Newtonian mechanics, a fundamentally empirical theory. From a small collection of postulates which have been well verified, it makes predictions, which have also been well verified. However, Relativity says little to nothing useful about the domain of the very small, where quantum mechanics has made so many successful (and effectively no unsuccessful) predictions.

 

For what it's worth, I believe but can't prove (or even very intelligently discuss) that there is a boson-ish particle of gravitation force (which tradition dictates is called the graviton), and that designing experiments to test any theories that can predict its behavior is going to be tremendously difficult.

 

Gravity is just so damn weak compared to the other fundamental interactions! While 19th Century experimental technology was equal to the task of testing the other long-range fundamental interaction, the electromagnetic, a comparable strait-forward experiment such as detecting a single graviton would require about [math]10^{26}[/math] times the sensitivity - such a mind-boggling challenge that I strongly anticipate that such experiments, if they are ever conducted, will little resemble any of the past few centuries.

:)

I fully believe that if Einstein would have developed a quantum theory of gravitation that he would have recanted any idea that space could be bent.

;)

I think any quantum theory of gravity will have to agree with observation, and hence, closely with the predictions of General Relativity.

 

It’s important, I think, not to confuse the metaphoric interpretation of the mathematical formalism of General Relativity – “bending space”, etc. – with either the formalism itself, or our intuitive experience with bending physical objects. Though the metaphor can be useful as a guide in learning and using the formalism, they are not the same. As in any field, taking a metaphor literally can be confusing.

[freeztar]

Precisely, and hence the meaning of the quote that is my signature, and the basis of my Theory of Temporal Relativity.

 

Your quote/sig says: "There are simply no physical properties of light that cause clocks of faster moving objects to run slower. Therefore, the notion of the speed of light as a determining factor as to why this happens is irrelevant and must be reconsidered."

 

The deduction you make after "Therefore," is against everything that the scientific community, at large, holds true. Your first statement is true AFAIK, as long as it applies to non-relativistic properties :eek:. Your second statement implies a misunderstanding of relativity theory.

 

The speed of light does not cause clocks to move slower or faster.

A "clock" is meant to be an observer at any referential frame. Relativity tells us that referential frames are..well...referential. :evil:

I don’t think so. There are some outright contradictions in your description. A particle located anywhere in the universe is at an equal “distance” from the CMBR and will measure the universe at the same age relative to and based on the CMBR. The CMBR is a point in time, not in location.

 

CMBR, or Cosmic Background Radiation, is a measure, and combination, of temperature and time.

Location is merely a defined referential frame.

You cannot be equally redshifted isotropically in all directions AND have a blueshift relative to the same “location”.

What are you referring to? Location is relative, yes/no?

I do this in my Theory of Temporal Relativity; you may want to re-read it. Think of the universal clock as a river, with various clocks swirling at different rates of time within it. The full of the river exists at once, while individual portions flow at various speeds. However, they are all contained within the larger entity.

 

I quite like thinking about this. :hihi:

It could make for a great beginning to a sci-fi novel.

 

Unfortunately, you've presented nothing to support these ideas. You allude to your theory, but provide no link?

 

Lovers come and go, the river will roll, roll, roll :eek_big:

[EWright]

Your quote/sig says: "There are simply no physical properties of light that cause clocks of faster moving objects to run slower. Therefore, the notion of the speed of light as a determining factor as to why this happens is irrelevant and must be reconsidered."

Einstein based his postulate on the speed of light, which, agreed, is dependent upon and equal to c. So you tell me then, why c exists as the rate at which massless objects travel. I say to you it is because this is the rate at which time arrives... at which the future becomes the past.

 

The deduction you make after "Therefore," is against everything that the scientific community, at large, holds true. Your first statement is true AFAIK, as long as it applies to non-relativistic properties :eek:. Your second statement implies a misunderstanding of relativity theory.

 

No, it simply proposes and alternative reason for the basis of it.

 

 

The speed of light does not cause clocks to move slower or faster.

A "clock" is meant to be an observer at any referential frame. Relativity tells us that referential frames are..well...referential. :evil:

 

I do not imply that the speed of light causes clocks to move faster, quite the contrary. Clocks move faster or slower relative to the rate at which they move through time, which arrives at c.

 

CMBR, or Cosmic Background Radiation, is a measure, and combination, of temperature and time.

Location is merely a defined referential frame.

 

What are you referring to? Location is relative, yes/no?

Your understanding of the CMBR is flawed. It does not exist at a given location, but rather at a given time... and distance... but distance in time, not locale.

 

I quite like thinking about this. :hihi:

It could make for a great beginning to a sci-fi novel.

 

Unfortunately, you've presented nothing to support these ideas. You allude to your theory, but provide no link?

 

Lovers come and go, the river will roll, roll, roll :eek_big:

 

Try clicking my signature for your requested link.

[modest]

I didn’t say that SR or GR were the basis of this measurement. And how do you propose a particle has been still relative to the CMBR exactly? This statement contradicts the basis of relative motion.

 

A particle in the CMBR's reference frame will be motionless relative to the hubble flow. The CMBR would be equally redshifted isotropically or in all directions. A particle with great relative speed to the CMBR would observe blueshifted CMBR in the forward direction of motion and greatly redshifted CMBR behind. I think I've heard the milky way's motion relative to the hubble flow is 600 km/s, but I'm not too sure of this.

 

I don’t think so. There are some outright contradictions in your description. A particle located anywhere in the universe is at an equal “distance” from the CMBR and will measure the universe at the same age relative to and based on the CMBR. The CMBR is a point in time, not in location. You cannot be equally redshifted isotropically in all directions AND have a blueshift relative to the same “location”.

 

I'm quite sure you're misunderstanding me (as Nina Simone would say)

Your original question is how can an observer be 'still' compared to CMBR. Well, earth is not. Here is earth's CMBR:

 

image credit

 

The color is obviously exaggerated to demonstrate the correction needed - but this demonstrates that earth is in motion relative to the CMBR. This is why I say a particle 'still' relative to the CMBR observes equally redshifted CMBR isotropically. Earth is in motion as is our sun as is the milky way - all in motion relative to the hubble flow. We have experienced different time (not by much) since the last scattering surface as a particle that has been still relative to the CMBR's reference frame. I hope this clears that up.

 

- modest

 

... edit ... I should clarify when I say CMBR in this post I mean the place where it was emitted - the last scattering surface - and its reference frame, not the radiation itself.... peace :)

[Mike C]

If something else is going on it sure is doing a good job of imitating curved spacetime... with black holes, time dilation, etc. In fact, I think you and I would probably agree that GR is the best theory at explaining what is observed - we just feel different about how real it seems - and that's ok.

 

Ha ha. Yeah and most everybody believes in the BBT too.

 

Mike C

[Natural]

To the best of my knowledge, according to best accepted current theory, the answer to this question is “we don't know”.

...

From a small collection of postulates which have been well verified, it makes predictions, which have also been well verified. However, Relativity says little to nothing useful about the domain of the very small, where quantum mechanics has made so many successful (and effectively no unsuccessful) predictions.

...

I think any quantum theory of gravity will have to agree with observation, and hence, closely with the predictions of General Relativity.

Very well said.

And I do agree that for now there is no better theory than Einstein's to show some idea of what is going on. (not many anyway) I just feel like a theory that is based on a non-defined topic like space is lacking in it's base. Most scientific postulates start by giving a physical definition of the objects of the experiment. But since space has no physical definition there would seem to be no actual experiment going on. It would be just as easy to say that there is a giant invisible magical bunny pushing the planets into an orbit with his ears. But since he is invisible there is no proving that he is not there. And since "everyone knows" that space is "there", there is no proving that it is not, since the "math works out".

:)

I know that I like many other people anxiously await some future experiment that stumbles across a valid quantum theory of gravity. (the idea of vacuuons seem very different but promising) I just hope that physicists won't be hindered by the blinders of mathematical theory too much to see the actual physical world of the quantum interactions. I think the "hands on" physicist is just as important as the "mathematical" theoretical physicist. Although not being a mathematician myself I know how much I would rely on them to be able to prove the mathematical validity of an experiment.

:cup:

Damn that weak gravity!...:friday: