An Accidental Universe

[deleted]

Tom,

I have no problem with relativity as math, I just don't think the "fabric of spacetime" is "physically real."

After all these years of debating this, is it really that hard to see I distinguish between the two? To go back to one of our much earlier discussions, the math of epicycles was quite accurate for its day and could be made as accurate as any model out there, for the very real reason that we are the center of our view of the universe. Much as driving, from one's perspective, it is the road moving. The sun still appears to move across the sky and it can thus be mathematically modeled that way. That doesn't mean Apollo's chariot, or cosmic gear wheels are real, just because the math works. Nor is there a real four dimensional spacetime, with all the wormholes, blocktime, multitudes of present moments, etc. that this theory allows. Change is fundamental to physics. It is not an illusion. The events are ephemeral. They don't exist in some eternal blocktime. Ockham's razor weighs strongly against it. It is a belief system and the fact many otherwise smart people believe in it, doesn't make it real.

Who knows though. Maybe I'll fall in a wormhole one day and find it really is Wonderland, but I don't really want to go there. I like the little bit of sanity I've managed to carve out of this crazy world.

[deleted]

Tom,

"'metaphysics' is knowledge of 'what is' beyond our senses"

This describes "atoms" as well as "spirits". And that's the problem with 'metaphysics'. Since one man's "atoms" is another man's "spirits". To a mystic, modern physics is as nonsense as mysticism is to a physicist. This is the reason (i.e. the 'metaphysical nature of physics') why so much bitter opposition, intolerance and down right persecution exists among physicists; while lacking among mathematicians. Mathematicians do not claim any knowledge of what is the Universe. Any claim of such knowledge I say is metaphysical. And ALL metaphysical claims ultimately fail.

You write, "There may exist things one cannot sense". What we cannot sense is not the issue for me. Rather, our claim such nonsensical knowledge is sensible I find flawed. I can restate this as follows. There is nothing real about any theory! It's all an elaborate 'made-up story'. Where physicists fail, imho, is in believing their theories are real.

From my brief reading of this article on Albrecht, I agree there are no fundamental physical laws that can describe the Universe. To believe there are is no less absurd than believing you can truly know another human being. Such laws as we understand may indeed depend on our sense of time. As 'time' is what gives 'existence' to everything that is for us.

In my essay, The Metaphysics of Physics., I argue we can end the metaphysical in physics if Basic Laws are mathematical truisms we use in our analysis of our measurements. Planck's Law, for example, I show to be just such mathematical truism and not a physical law per se.

Constantinos

Peter Jackson

John,

I'm with Jim George. We've greatly overcomplicated the simple concept we call 'time'.

Identical clocks, of any type, only tick at different rates if they are moving different physical conditions.

The REAL PHYSICAL truth is only then motion. The only other realisation needed to resolve every other mystery is then that the emissions representing 'DURATIONS' have physical representations, and are ALSO liable to changed due to differing physical conditions.

So an emitted one second light pulse will be found different when measured against the ticks of an identical clock in motion relatively. Yes/No?

This is because the 'wave'(length) is varied by the interaction, in all cases.

Please explain to me what mysterious phenonomena is there in the universe that this simplified understanding does NOT fully explain? Think it through and let me know. I predict you'll find there are none.

Peter

[deleted]

Peter,

"So an emitted one second light pulse will be found different when measured against the ticks of an identical clock in motion relatively. Yes/No?"

Yes.

"This is because the 'wave'(length) is varied by the interaction, in all cases."

The frequency.

I'm not trying to complicate it, I just don't want the argument to be "There is no time." Time is a primal effect.

Peter Jackson

John,

We're trying to tie down reality yes? Which means identifying and excluding the 'metaphysical'.

So the big mistake that everybody makes is in assuming 'frequency' over wavelength. This is well understood in astronomy where we consistently get nonsense if not consistently using wavelength (lambda)! Yet because frequency is often the only 'observable' most have forgotten where it comes from.

Think what frequency is. It is some abstract number, per invented quanta of time, related to speed. Speed itself is only a distance per arbitrary time period. The only REAL fundamental physical quality we have is distance, so wavelength. We must then 'reverse engineer' it with LOCAL time to get the derivative; frequency.

If an emitter 10bn light years away emitted a 3 second signal ('event') containing 1,000 waves (wavenumber) 10bn years ago, the signal waves (or photons as you wish) after have interacted with countless billions of electrons on the way, all moving when re-emitting the waves (via 'coherent forward scattering') it has been 'tampered with', but spectroscopy gives us this history.

When it 'arrives' it cannot be detected till interacting with a lens. If the lens is moving fore/aft, the moment it interacts it's wavelength changes instantaneously. It CANNOT be detected otherwise. Now, as c = lambda*f, is a constant, the detector then finds a NEW LOCAL C!! Now you tell me what has happened to the apparent start and finish of the 'event' if the lens is moving towards the source? Yes it looks like less time. But the wavenumber is identical!

Don't let refractive index n distract you. We have been guilty of a MASSIVE sin on theorising. We have only assumed and used frequency instead of also lambda, so we have missed the fact that c is a propagation speed which has localised to the new frame (Continuous Spontaneous Localisation, = CSL)!!

Of course there is time, but our massive mistake has been using the metaphysical DERIVATIVE frequency. Only when we understand and correct our our error does the meaning of time become clear.

I'm relying on you to assimilate the importance of that as your are relatively un indoctratinated by past assumptions, though the 'F error' is universal.

Peter

[deleted]

Peter,

I'll have to digest that some more, but I still think we ignore the wave qualities of light. Frequency is a characteristic of waves, not velocity/speed. Light does travel as a wave, not a particle. When it's going through the slits, it is a wave. It's only when it's stopped by the receptor that it collapses to a point.

Consider this paper and think that the quantum of light received is a sample of the wave front and not a particular photon traveling billions of lightyears from the source. Then consider what this paper says, in terms of how that received quantum of light is composed of different parts of the spectrum.

I think there are a number of ways light can be redshifted, if we didn't insist it was always a point particle.

Peter Jackson

John,

I'm not sure how you jumped to assuming I was ignoring waves. My whole thesis has rejected 'point particles!' Indeed so does current science! Particles are quantum fluctuations. A wave is simply a fluctuation.

Frequency is not a 'characteristic' in any physical sense at all, it is a derivative using time, so just a number. You're still falling into the trap of 'familiarisation'. Because it's the easiest observable for centuries we've foolishly grown to endow it with qualities it doesn't have, so let in distract us from the real fundamental quantities of an emission; wavelength, wave number and relative speed. The number does not change, the other two DO when moving between different propagating media. We call it 'refraction'.

Perhaps we should all write 100 times, to re-learn the known fundamental truth; "Derivatives are not real, physical or fundamental." (that also goes for the 'partial time derivatives' from Maxwell's equations, also now poorly understood!).

Consider another analogy, with sound. Can you hear sound waves if your eardrum does not vibrate and send those waves to your brain? Of course not. But to do so there is then, if you are moving wrt the 'approach medium' a NEW wavelength in your aural nerve, and new propagation speed, but the same wavenumber.

We've been lazy assuming just frequency as it's a short cut. just try using wavelength as well, you'll suddenly find CSL for all moving observers in Special Relativity looses it's paradoxical mystery!!!!!

As the process with EM waves is also 'quantum' (atomic scattering) physics also seems to be entirely coherent again. It's only ingrained beliefs getting in the way. The proof of the pudding...

Peter

[deleted]

Peter,

I wasn't saying you are ignoring waves, but the whole digitized establishment. Foregive the fact I tend to riff whatever comes to mind, since my time to participate in these conversations is constrained at the moment.

Conversationally, sometimes it's easier to argue with someone you disagree with, than make connections to someone with similar views, but working from their own perspective.

[deleted]

Peter

So what is a wave then. Some mystical physical entity which comprises no physical entities?

Neither will anybody find any resolution of SR in this. Leaving aside what SR actually constitutes, as defined by Einstein, and just addressing the underlying concept of relativity, the "paradoxes" are not a function of observation. Because there is none. There is no observational light in Einstein. What light is, etc, etc, is irrelevant to understanding Einstein and the mistake he made.

Paul

Peter Jackson

Paul,

If you already know the answers why do you ask? A wave is a graphical representation of a fluctuation of a physical quantity or quality.

So now consider carefully what a detector is, and what happens when waves encounter the detector to allow it to detect.

A detector is a physical 'lens' medium with 'sensor' links to a processor (brain). The sensor detects the new fluctuations in the medium, which propagate to the brain which then interprets them.

No new 'wavelength' in the medium, = no detection!!

Now brains must interpret the fluctuations, which they do against time, giving the derivative RATE which we call 'frequency'. Now some brains are better developed than others. Most think only frequency, and think its somehow 'real'. but we are after all developing our intelligence to find the underlying mechanism for the apparently illogical effects we call 'Relativity'.

Those effects are only illogical when not thinking any deeper than 'frequency'. As soon as the fundamental wavelength (lambda) is considered, then the constant c = f*lambda resolves to CSL by conserving the formula including a delta lambda (Doppler shift IS of wavelength - astronomy does not work otherwise!).

Each lens is a discrete field (DFM), all light movement is propagation. So it's also curved; AE; "A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position." (GR. PoR Inferences. Ch 22).

Think that through slowly, visualising it, to give your processor a chance to rationalise and assimilate it (you should get a Eureka moment).

John.

I agree, and falsification is essential, But so is seeking out the "hidden likenesses" and commonality. Otherwise we never progress.

Best wishes

Peter

[deleted]

Peter

"A wave is a graphical representation of a fluctuation of a physical quantity or quality"

So, how has your "whole thesis rejected point particles"? One has to have point particles to have a wave, and reference one over time to know that it is a wave.

Your next point in your response is incorrect. A 'detector' is any entity which comes into contact with light. Whether or not that entity can subsequently process some physical effect in the photons (aka light) received is irrelevant. Light is a physically existent phenomenon, which needs explanation, as such, ie what is it, how does it move, etc, and not what the brain does with it.

Paul

[deleted]

If it moves, it becomes spatial, and is no longer a point particle. It is a wave, and the faster it moves, the more it waves, and the more it can experience diffraction, interferrence (constructive and destructive). Somewhere I posted that Quantum reduces to Classical only when the "now particle" (black hole) stops. Only then is it no longer waving.

Time dilation manifests itself as the Space Creation. As a spatial object, the particle can go through both holes rather readily. The wave is not a Probability. It is reality.

It collapses (reality) according to the desire to reach Time Equilibrium (alternately, rate of travel). "c" is the limit at which the entire particle has turned completely spatial. Anything less, and we have spatial forms of less than Dark Energy. At zero "c" we have a black hole (point parrticle).

As it moves, it sheds mass. Einstein is incorrect when he states that mass gets infinitely heavy as it approaches "c". On thhe contrary, it has lost all its mass. This mass has become the Space that accounts for the expanding uiniverse.

Energy has been conserved.

Does anyone agree with my theory? www.CIGTheory.com

[deleted]

Doug

"If it moves, it becomes spatial, and is no longer a point particle. It is a wave"

If it physically exists it is spatial. If it moves, it just has a different spatial position from previously, and it is still a point particle. It cannot be physically existent in different spatial locations at the same time. So, what is being said here is that these particles move in a wave like manner, as opposed to (say) a zig-zag, or randomly. My point to Peter being that a wave is not a physically existent entity.

Time dilation is non-existent, physical existence occurs. What happens with light, which is of itself physically existent, during its existence is an entirely different issue. c is the speed of light, not physical existence.

Paul

Peter Jackson

doug,

Yes. I agree. But with caveats; As infinite electron microscopes confirm, there is no such thing as a 'point' (Paul please note that point! (lol). If it is non zero spatially when at rest it in NOT a 'point! If it IS zero, then it does not exist so is only metaphysical. 'Lines' are the same. If they have zero thickmness they CANNOT EXIST. So let's be clear, points and lines are metaphysical, so of very limited use use for any physical theory.

When a non zero point moves it becomes another 3D form, so a tube, torus or helix (i.e. DNA as a 'tube). Now, insofar as a helix may be said from any viewpoint to describe a fluctuation, which is a REAL motion of a real entity, then it is a physical entity (Unfortunately we again lost Paul at the start line).

In fact I'd go further, pointing out the matter of 'spin' which infers that all particles are in motion, and again do not exist if there is no 'spin'!

But now let's stop assuming things and look more carefully at what 'speed' and 'motion' are. They are relative concepts. Something we to oft ignore. Find a particle in space, then tell me if it's 'moving'.

You're immediately in trouble. You have to find some datum. And yo CAN'T say it's moving with respect to it's previous 'rest' state, because that STATE may equally be considered to have been motion, and the acceleration actually deceleration, to a stop!

So: Analysis; There must always be a local background frame as a datum state for any 'speed'. Yes?

(This is VERY fundamental so requires the removal of decades of stupidities - and will prove VERY important).

Peter

[deleted]

Peter

You made the differentiation between point particles and waves, not me.

"But now let's stop assuming things and look more carefully at what 'speed' and 'motion' are. They are relative concepts..."

This is where your theory is flawed. It has nothing to do with 'rest states'. Observation, or any form of sensing, can have no effect on physical existence. The issue is about physically existential state. And we cannot know this, because we cannot externalise ourselves from it. But the corollary of this is that we are in a closed system. Therefore, whilst we can never 'actually' know what is moving and how fast, etc, etc, we can know within the closed syatem. And in order to do that, one can select any entity and deem it the reference, then compare any other entity with it, and identify the difference. Within the closed system, it is these differences that are real. Such calibration necessitates the use of the same reference for all the results to be comparable. That analysis is certainly not achieved via whatever happens to be the 'local background frame', because you are not maintaining consistency of reference.

Paul

Thomas Ray

"Ockham's razor weighs strongly against (spacetime)."

Absolute nonsense, John. Please, learn how the extension and unification of physical theories has actually evolved.

Tom

Peter Jackson

Edwin,

The anisotropic CMB pattern prediction and derivation is included in this 2010 paper, both specific and implicit, here;

Helical CMBR Asymmetry, Pre-Big Bang State, Dark Matter and the Axis of Evil.

If the Milky Way is positioned say half way up the left hand outflow arm and slightly off centre, with a precession based hellicity similar to Centaurus A, the complex asymmetric flow pattern (characterised as heat in the graph) is perfectly reproduced. I can think of no other possible way it could ever arise. If you can do let me know. I await your numbers.

The good part is that when we get it all wrong it seems we may get more go's. Luckily for us!

Very best wishes

Peter

Peter Jackson

John,

"You first have to clear away all the current theoretical debris to start another model."

See the link I've just posted to Edwin below. Until the better model exists for comparison none of the current theoretical debris pile can be cleared away.

So we can't do it 'first', and it can't come after, so we're stuck in this catch 22 with increasingly divergent un-unified physics (though I see Tom has just decided to unify it - well done, long overdue). The increasing anisotropy and non homogeneity of space, (let alone the Higg's field), hardly fitted under the carpet any more!

The new AGN based recycling model also entirely unifies physics and removes something over 30 major anomalies at last count as well as all the paradoxes. consistent with the excellent Montevideo interpretation of QM in one of this years essays. Or perhaps wait 'til next time around?

Tom, if you read this, do let me know how you've done it if you have, we may find consistencies.

Best wishes

Peter

Thomas Ray

Constantinos,

"There is nothing real about any theory! It's all an elaborate 'made-up story'. Where physicists fail, imho, is in believing their theories are real."

I don't disagree. Sure, the theory is contrived. What is not contrived, is the science -- i.e., the correspondence of theoretical prediction to physical result. Science just doesn't have anything to say about what may lie outside of science.

"From my brief reading of this article on Albrecht, I agree there are no fundamental physical laws that can describe the Universe. To believe there are is no less absurd than believing you can truly know another human being. Such laws as we understand may indeed depend on our sense of time. As 'time' is what gives 'existence' to everything that is for us."

I don't go that far -- I find it a handicap to believe in any framework. To do science, one sets personal belief aside. The crafting of physical theories has to be independent of the physics, or else we won't know whether something exists because we believe in it, or actually corresponds to something "out there." An anti-realist (and many interpretations of quantum theory take this position) says there is nothing out there; our measurements create the reality. My own choice of realist philosophy is metaphysical realism (the moon is really there when no one is looking). I think Albrecht's program respects objective reality, in that the free choice of random conditions depends on the choice being available.

Tom

Peter Jackson

Tom,

"To do science, one sets personal belief aside." Commendable words, but can you truly say that's what you do?

If so, why do you almost unfailingly revert to mainstream interpretation of relativity to refute any suggestions of other interpretations?

And if your answer relates at all to such things as established 'proofs' and 'consistencies' then you have failed your own test. This is because other models may well prove more consistent, but you have prejudged on beliefs not honest comparables of logical consistency.

If you claim not to do this, then perhaps address my posts and links above and below as a demonstration.

I'm not suggesting yours is a unique case, but that we all have far more deeply rooted hidden beliefs that we are normally prepared to seek and recognise, and more effort is needed to genuinely identify them and set them aside.

Only then can fundamental science genuinely progress.

Peter

Thomas Ray

Peter,

"'To do science, one sets personal belief aside.' Commendable words, but can you truly say that's what you do?"

To every extent possible, yes.

"If so, why do you almost unfailingly revert to mainstream interpretation of relativity to refute any suggestions of other interpretations?"

Because the refutation is complete and correct. I agree with Vesselin Petkov that "science never moves backward." There is no "non-mainstream interpretation" of relativity, because relativity is mathematically complete, and not in need of interpretation. What that means, is that the mathematical model is demonstrably independent of the physical phenomena the model predicts. Logical consistency is not enough -- personal beliefs can be logically consistent and have nothing to do with the physical world.

"And if your answer relates at all to such things as established 'proofs' and 'consistencies' then you have failed your own test. This is because other models may well prove more consistent, but you have prejudged on beliefs not honest comparables of logical consistency."

Show your work, then. If I find a mathematically complete model that competes with relativity and predicts the same physical results, and if the results are experimentally confirmed, then I will support it as a genuine alternative.

"If you claim not to do this, then perhaps address my posts and links above and below as a demonstration."

As I have said before in these fora, a mathematically complete theory only explains what it contains. It does not explain what's not in the theory. Observational anomalies for which there is no theory do not falsify what you call "mainstream science." As an example -- and I've given it often -- the discovery (Penzias and Wilson, 1965) of microwave background radiation does not falsify the steady state theory of cosmology. However, because big bang cosmology can explain CBR and steady state cannot, the discovery is one more verification of the mathematical completeness of general relativity.

"I'm not suggesting yours is a unique case, but that we all have far more deeply rooted hidden beliefs that we are normally prepared to seek and recognise, and more effort is needed to genuinely identify them and set them aside."

Right. As I said, though, logical consistency is no test.

Tom

[deleted]

Tom,

The most insidious mistakes are those we don't even know we are making. The safest position to take (drawing from our broad human experience) is we cannot know what is the Universe. As this requires the same 'mind set' as believing we can know another human being. And though we can all agree 'something is' out there independent of us (what I think you call 'metaphysical realism') this should not lead to the arrogant position what we 'know' of it is what is out there. Just like, what we know of another person is what that person truly is.

You write, "Sure, the theory is contrived. What is not contrived, is the science".

Can you really separate "theory" from "science"? Even after all the quantum weirdness we have come to know and some love while others hate? Science is no longer making 'objective observations'. There is much greater 'interpretation' of the objective data based on the theory we hold. It is reassuring to think such 'objective interpretation' is 'science'.

I too believed in that innocence. But have become increasingly skeptical. Add to this the design of our instruments to produce the outcomes we search (all based on our theories of what we search) and the picture becomes even more enigmatic. I fear we may be deceiving ourselves believing in our own magic. And that, in my view, is The Metaphysics of Physics..

You write, "To do science, one sets personal belief aside". But can we put aside our mind? Or all minds are the same everywhere and for all times.

Constantinos

Thomas Ray

Constantinos,

I don't think the philosophical discussion contributes anything to the topic of this thread. I have given my own opinion on Andreas Albrecht's research, applying the conventional rules of scientific falsification (Popper) and from a realist perspective. So nothing in my opinion is "hidden."

That's as far as I want to take it.

Tom

Thomas Ray

Instead of spending all my time on this thread defending relativity (I am finished with that now, for good) -- I would have liked to have been involved in a high level exchange on the genuine merits of Andreas Albrecht's research program, which I think are considerable.

In my opinion, most participants in this discussion don't have a clue as to either the content of that program, or its implications for science, particularly cosmology. In fact, I think it is a potentially big step toward legitimizing cosmology as a hard physical science.

I've also not been shy of expressing my opinion that Vesselin Petkov's essay this year ("Can gravity be quantized") was unjustly ignored. For the same reason.

Allow me to suggest that Petkov on the side of relativity, and Albrecht on the side of quantum mechanics -- have a common meeting ground; i.e., that the mathematics of random variables and the mathematics of continuous measurement functions converge on an underlying unitary structure of topological foundation. I've devoted considerable research to that proposition -- would anyone like to seriously discuss it?

Tom

Peter Jackson

Tom,

You well know nothing can be constructively proved complete, so with; "Because the refutation is complete and correct." you've exposed that deeply embedded belief you always invoke. If you disagree let's test it. You must then show that the alternative is less complete and consistent. I do appreciate your offer to do so, so off we go;

Now, as I've said before, the model agrees with both the SR postulates and that the mathematical formalism represents a perfectly adequate representation. But the maths is not the nature, and other maths can give identical results. The only other valid falsifications of the 'nature' (reality) then are of consistency, self, logical and with observation (data).

So if one interpretation turns out to have less inconsistencies and anomalies it is possibly a more accurate model of nature, Yes?

First the maths. The only change is as the algorithms in my essay and end notes. These have been verified, never challenged or falsified, and produce CSL, via the instantaneous delta lambda implicit in detection. Thus also comply with QM!!

(resolving the 'measurement problem'). Please check them again. In fact there's a better version here; MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING v2

Now let's lift the carpet (no longer just the corner!) and pull out a few things pushed under there as it doesn't fit current interpretation, arising from the only varying assumption; that any background medium has also to be 'absolute'. The DFM resolution is in parenthesis.

1. CMBR Anisotropies, with severe lack of isotropy and homogeneity. (derived)

2. The host of apparent paradoxes, which won't quite ever go away. (removed)

3. The IAU 2000 resolutions regarding inconsistent theoretical basis. (found)

4. Stellar Aberration not possible with waves and needing refraction (resolved)

5. Pre Big bang conditions. (Logically defined and evidenced).

6. Re-ionization (ditto)

7. Unification of SR and QM. - all about time really. (complete).

8. The Higg's Field. Yes! a field with an assumed spatial identity! (allowed).

9. The flat 'lockstep' galaxy rotation curve. (Precisely derived)

10. The kinetic SZ effect, decoupled halo rotation etc. (predicted).

11. Dark Matter and Dark Energy. The non relativistic 'special agent' even the eminent Sandage had to assume for the Hubble constant and acceleration. (solved)

12. The 'Ether' George Smoot had to invoke (2004 Nobel) explain CMB 'frames last scattered' etc. Again with a kinetic identity. (fully implicit).

13. Kinetic Reverse Refraction. (derived)

14. Non linear Optics effects. (ditto).

15. Lensing delays of over 3 years!! - Abel. (longer predicted)

16. Intrinsic rotation of matter in space. (predicted)

17. Pair production. (matter from nowhere). (predicted)

18. Violation of Snell's Law and loss of 'Fresnel refraction' in favour of 'Fraunhofer reraction' at Maxwell's near/far field transition zone.

I'll stop there but could fill a book with astronomical anomalies alone, such as the very Ecliptic Plane itself (USNO Circ. 179 p6). and JPL's Dan Gezari's continuing problems with Laser Lunar ranging theoreticals. All resolved in the more simple interpretation.

Most are in complete denial that those exist as they're immediately ignored if they don't 'fit'. So Only 'beliefs' keep the present interpretation alive. But human nature won't let most face up to realities, so it's claimed, with no basis, that all the above are just 'misunderstandings'.

This is your test. Can you really drop your beliefs and compare honestly?

Peter

[deleted]

Tom,

I'm trying to respect your desire not to continue this, but I do want to make the following observation;

" However, because big bang cosmology can explain CBR and steady state cannot, the discovery is one more verification of the mathematical completeness of general relativity."

If redshift is a consequence of distance, the CMBR would be the solution to Olber's paradox, the light from ever more distant sources, shifted completely off the visible spectrum. Rather than open this up for debate, I will point out that when the James Webb telescope goes up and starts examining this radiation from the very edges of the visible universe, I predict it will find shadows of ever more distant sources within it.

"science never moves backward."

Lots of things can't move backward. They do collapse.

[deleted]

Of course, BBT couldn't explain its evenness and so Inflation was added

[deleted]

Tom,

I understand. Hard to engage in sensible reasoning if you believe only science provides the truths worth knowing. And never question that absolute metaphysical belief.

Constantinos

[deleted]

What you're (both) saying is too vague to have much bearing on the issues. You have to explain why two clocks disagree if they're separated and then brought back together, whether after moving differently, or after being at different heights in a gravity field. The two clocks then have different ages. That question needs a very specific answer, and no-one has been able to give one, not even the best physicists of this and the last century. The answer has to fit the equations in a VERY specific way, otherwise what anyone suggests is in danger of being just more hot air.

[deleted]

Anonymousse,

Given mass is essentially composed of light(E=mc2), when it is accelerated, or in a gravitational field, its internal activity slows, so that the internal action and velocity don't exceed c. Therefore the clock you use in any frame is slowed and thus records the same speed of light. There is no internal action to light/at c, so it has no clock and no time. If you accept time is an effect of action, as I posited, the question then becomes; What is space? Time is a measure of action, but measures of space, distance, area, volume, are measures of space. I would argue space is not simply an effect of the geometry, but is the foundation of geometry. It is inertial and infinite. Consider the centrifugal effect; it is not due to outside points of reference, but is the relationship of spin to inertia. As you point out, we can have clocks record different rates in different contexts. When you accelerate or place a clock in a gravitational field, it is slowed. What those two situations do is act against inertia, just like spin. If you could build clocks with incredibly precise measures and place them in various situations, then bring them back together, the one which recorded the most lapsed time/ran fastest, would have been the one closest to the inertial frame.

Three dimensions are essentially a coordinate system. They define space, but they don't create it, any more than latitude, longitude and altitude create the planet.

As I point out in my contest entry, by treating time as a measure of duration, physics only emphasizes sequence, rather than the activity creating events, so it becomes a static narrative of events on some eternal timeline, rather than a dynamic process of change. Ask yourself, does the earth really move/exist along the fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, or does tomorrow become yesterday because the earth rotates?

I'll leave it at that for the moment, so whatever questions you wish to ask, I can try to answer.

« Previous Page Next Page »