An Accidental Universe

Anon

Leaving aside the question as to whether clocks do vary, the response is, so what. Timing devices are just that, timing devices, they 'tell' the time. They are not time. Time is a conceptual constant rate of change. That is the reference, not any particular device. That is why the measuring system of timing involves, within the realms of practicality, synchronisation, otherwise it is useless.

Paul

John

No. Einstein makes all the right noises, but there is no observational light, because he has not differentiated physical existence and the representation thereof which we receive (aka light. To calibrate duration and distance he uses, quite rightly, a constant reference. And to 'make it real' as it were, and perhaps genuinely think this is observation, he uses light. So we have rays of, lightening, etc, etc. But all he is doing is using a constant, the fact that he has called it light, does not make it light, in the observational sense. This mistake is counterbalanced by his failure to understand how timing works, ie what is the reference. So he creates a level of 'discrepancy' in timing which does not exist (ie local to common) but which he then explains by relativity. So, in sum, he has shifted a real timing differential from one end of the pysical process (ie receipt) to the other (ie existence)

"If you accept time is an effect of action..." That doesn't work at all! The idea of action implies the pre-existence of time, it needs time to exist already. It implies that a sequence of events can happen, or you couldn't have action. So you can't have action also causing time. This kind of talk falls to pieces when you look at it a little.

And Paul, (btw, I'm not 'anon', that was someone else). If you say 'so what', then fine, you don't see a problem, and think you can explain the issues away by constantly restating your definitions, then you don't see the question. So others will carry on trying to answer these questions.

Anyway, good luck, I have to go, there's a female mousse quite nearby...

Anonymousse,

That's why I keep emphasizing it isn't the sequence from past to future, but the changing configuration that causes future to become past. The presumed vector of time is duration, but duration doesn't transcend the present. It is the state of the present, as events are occurring. The "idea of action" would also imply the pre-existence of temperature. Consider the most elemental states of a fluctuating vacuum, or the cosmic background radiation. Presumably you can't have space, without some degree of quantum activity. Does that imply the pre-existence of a thermal scale? Time is a measure of the change caused by activity. As you measure one wave, the prior wave has reconfigured, because the energy is conserved, not the shape.

"Time is a measure of the change caused by activity"... ha ha ha, no, it can't be that, and if you knew a little, well... physics, you'd know it can't be that. Activity requires time to exist already, you've picked out something that can only happen with time already existing - activity - and decided that it's what causes time.

Anonymousse,

So what is this thing called time that exists already, other than a measure of duration?

Anonymousse

I do not see a problem, because there isn't one. What is physically happening is alteration, which occurs at a rate. Timing is a measuring system to calibrate this.

Paul

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

Edwin, This accidentally got hidden in the universe, so in case you missed it, responding to your question....

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

There's an unexplained flow of time, or apparent motion along a timeline. We seem to observe it every day. In the standard view that emerges from SR, it doesn't exist, and most relativists think it's a psychological illusion of some sort. Instead you have block time, where there's no present moment moving along. But the trouble is, it varies its rate in different places. No-one knows how to deal with that. Some say the illusion is getting slowed down somehow. Some say there's an underlying flow of time, and then some more superficial mechanism that causes these time rate changes. Some say it's something to do with the dimensions. No-one knows what this 'flow' is, or why it seems to flow at different speeds in different places. But we have the equations that describe exactly what it does, and any explanation needs to fit them like a glove - not just the mathematics, but all the surrounding conditions as well. Now I really have to go, Moussie is back...

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.

Mousse,

Not to be overly persistent, but just think through this one observation; Does the earth travel a narrative timeline from yesterday to tomorrow, or does tomorrow become yesterday because the earth rotates? It sounds simple enough, but it really does require some serious mental resetting to begin to internalize, since the very concept of human history and linear cause and effect logic is based on that narrative timeline.

People are very linear, focused beings in a manifestly non-linear and distributed reality.

Tom/Constaninos/All

"I agree there are no fundamental physical laws that can describe the Universe"

Incorrect. And that encapsulates the real problem physics currently has. Because there has been no attempt to identify properly what constitutes the physical existence we can know, ie as opposed to what we can believe in, and how that must occur. This being what is supposed to be being investigated, so this failure is a somewhat fundamental flaw. And, in the absence of such a proper understanding, physical theories about physical existence have evolved on the basis of metaphysical conceptualisations of it. For example, that 'every event has its own time', or physical existence innately involves some form of indefiniteness, or that sensing (particularly observation) has some effect on it, etc.

Paul

Anonymousse

There is nothing "unexplained" about the flow of time, in the sense that this is just the sequence of physical existence. By definition, whatever constitutes it can only occur in one definitive physically existent state at a time, there is alteration, and so a different physically existent state occurs. The rate of change, in any given circumstance, is what timing is measuring. There can be no change within any given physically existent state, otherwise there can be no physical existence. Change (and hence timing) concerns the difference between subsequent states in the sequence. In other words, the physical existence we are investigating is a spatial phenomenon which alters over time.

Of course, explaining what is happening, and why, is a complex issue.

Paul

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

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

John,

Regarding: We're trying to tie down reality yes?

Ya mon. I n I ask whose reality mon?

I n I tink CIG Theory, no?

Guys,

Would you please post your off-topic discussion in another forum. It's as if you are painting over important and potentially groundbreaking work with graffiti.

Tom

Tom,

I agree. I'm in a very interesting discussion on the Albrecht finding on the APS blog below, including a proposed new law of physics. I'll try to transpose some of that if I get a mo.

I hope you're working hard towards keeping your promise above. I looking forward to your response.

Link; Causal Probability

Best wishes

Peter