Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 113 (8790 total)
 Current session began: Page Loaded: 09-24-2017 1:43 PM
349 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, dwise1, JonF, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Porosity, Tangle, Tanypteryx (9 members, 340 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Upcoming Birthdays: Tempe 12ft Chicken
Post Volume:
 Total: 819,351 Year: 23,957/21,208 Month: 1,922/2,468 Week: 15/416 Day: 15/24 Hour: 1/2

 Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions

Author Topic:   How is the Universe here?
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 3118 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004

 Message 61 of 131 (487750) 11-04-2008 12:56 PM Reply to: Message 60 by New Cat's Eye11-04-2008 12:31 PM

Re: Future and Past Ramblings
I desperately don't want a de-railment!

Your definition is fine, but is not fundemental, energy is simply motion or movement at any level macro or micro. The only definition of anything is real is that it is in some way in motion [has energy].

Time is not dilated, what causes the 'effect' of time dilation is the energy working in different reference frames to the one you are in, the 'time' with the slower clock does not dilate at all.

What we call time dilation is simply the difference of separate energy states and it is that separation that causes the apparent dilation.

Einstein never thought time was a 'thing', his formulae do not show time as an object he shows it in every formula as a metre or measure, he uses it as shorthand for a given energy effect.

Bohr the same!

In fact there isn't a formula anywhere on this planet that encapsulates time as a thing in a singular manner.

Effects yes, as an object, no.

 This message is a reply to: Message 60 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-04-2008 12:31 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 62 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-04-2008 1:35 PM V-Bird has responded

New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11707
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.3

 (1)
 Message 62 of 131 (487752) 11-04-2008 1:35 PM Reply to: Message 61 by V-Bird11-04-2008 12:56 PM

I'm unable to stay on topic and also show how this stuff that you have just made up is not accurate so I'll just drop it.

Any lurker can simply read the following pages to see how wrong you are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

 This message is a reply to: Message 61 by V-Bird, posted 11-04-2008 12:56 PM V-Bird has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 64 by V-Bird, posted 11-04-2008 2:03 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

onifre
Member (Idle past 483 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008

 Message 63 of 131 (487754) 11-04-2008 1:54 PM Reply to: Message 59 by V-Bird11-04-2008 11:31 AM

Re: Future and Past Ramblings

 If you travel along with a quantum of energy, where is time?

Wouldn't travel signify distance, and wouldn't distance require time to be affected?

 It is not there because time is not an attribute of energy and because time is not an attribute of energy, it can have no physical properties to manipulate.

Wouldn't gravity also not be an attribute of energy? Gravity is the curvature of spacetime, if neither space nor time are 'things' as you say, gravity would not be a 'thing' either. I do agree that gravity isn't a 'thing', it is the effect of an energy density on spacetime, but then so would time also be an effect of spacetime when traveling distances, right?

And since space is curved time is affected when you are stationary, and I am traveling through space, right?

 Time ultimately is nothing more or less than an idea for us to use to make measurements, it's a great idea, but it is only an idea.

I don't agree on it being an idea, as I would not think length or width are just ideas. Time, as I understand it, is a unit of measuring, like length. It can measure the duration of events, as a legnth would measure the distance between 2 objects. Also, when we travel through space we notice that time is affected relative to the stationary object and the moving object, so to me it's not just an idea, it is a component of space that we understand.

 This does not objectify space or time and turn either into an object.

I never said object, but it is a component of space.

 They are useful ideas of measurement, but remain only ideas.

I would say it is a useful tool for measuring, but since it is affected by velocity, it also establishes it as a property of space.

 If we fail in distinguishing between 'idea' and 'thing' we can never develop a true insight into the cosmos,we relate to ideas all the time, but treat them as things, but this does not make them objects of reality.

I gotta side with Catholic Sci on this, we didn't fully start to comprehend the cosmos until we made time a property of space.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

 This message is a reply to: Message 59 by V-Bird, posted 11-04-2008 11:31 AM V-Bird has not yet responded

V-Bird
Member (Idle past 3118 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004

 Message 64 of 131 (487756) 11-04-2008 2:03 PM Reply to: Message 62 by New Cat's Eye11-04-2008 1:35 PM

Err, the first of those agree with me in the very first sentence and the second agrees around the point they mention 'reference frame'.

Just made up? I left convenientional Physics 15 years ago and have worked on my theories ever since!!!

I want to read what CD has to say on how the Universe is here, I want to discover if or by how much he differs from my own view on the subject title and will refrain from comment unless explicitly asked to do so.

If you feel the need, open a separate thread to knock me down.

 This message is a reply to: Message 62 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-04-2008 1:35 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

V-Bird
Member (Idle past 3118 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004

 Message 65 of 131 (487759) 11-04-2008 2:14 PM

Thin Ice.
Mods, I would like some clearance/assurance before further responses from me.

Onifire I will happily answer if I am given allowance to do so.

 Replies to this message: Message 66 by onifre, posted 11-04-2008 2:27 PM V-Bird has not yet responded

onifre
Member (Idle past 483 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008

 Message 66 of 131 (487762) 11-04-2008 2:27 PM Reply to: Message 65 by V-Bird11-04-2008 2:14 PM

Re: Thin Ice.
Well cavedivers title for this thread is 'How is the Universe here', which we havn't gotten past 'time' yet. Nor has he further taken this thread towards that explanation of origin so we seem to be stuck on the time concept. I think your reply would be within the scope of where the thread has gone.

Hopefully the mod. will agree. Unless cavediver would like to further take this thread past 'time' and into the origin of the Universe, which it doesn't seem like he wants to.

 This message is a reply to: Message 65 by V-Bird, posted 11-04-2008 2:14 PM V-Bird has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 67 by cavediver, posted 11-04-2008 2:36 PM onifre has responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 1176 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005

 Message 67 of 131 (487764) 11-04-2008 2:36 PM Reply to: Message 66 by onifre11-04-2008 2:27 PM

Re: Thin Ice.
 which it doesn't seem like he wants to.

I take it you didn't read my previous post? You want to talk crap with V-bird, be my guest. But the more of that goes on the less likely I will get involved as I have no patience for this. There are a million cranks out there who all think THEY have the answer to cosmology's 'secrets' and 'surprisngly' none of these coincide other than in their universal dismissal of the knowledge contained in every cosmology/relativity departemnt in the world, and in their complete lack of evidence-backed predictions and calculations. If word-salads are your thing - go for it...

 This message is a reply to: Message 66 by onifre, posted 11-04-2008 2:27 PM onifre has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 68 by V-Bird, posted 11-04-2008 2:53 PM cavediver has responded Message 69 by onifre, posted 11-04-2008 2:54 PM cavediver has not yet responded

V-Bird
Member (Idle past 3118 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004

 Message 68 of 131 (487766) 11-04-2008 2:53 PM Reply to: Message 67 by cavediver11-04-2008 2:36 PM

Re: Thin Ice.
That's an an end to it then and quite right too.

CD I am eager for you to continue and you have my personal assurance to 'keep out' as much as I can except to ask questions, I will try my damnedest to avoid debate where we differ.

 This message is a reply to: Message 67 by cavediver, posted 11-04-2008 2:36 PM cavediver has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 72 by cavediver, posted 11-04-2008 4:33 PM V-Bird has responded

onifre
Member (Idle past 483 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008

 Message 69 of 131 (487768) 11-04-2008 2:54 PM Reply to: Message 67 by cavediver11-04-2008 2:36 PM

Re: Thin Ice.
 I take it you didn't read my previous post?

I did, but I wasn't referencing that post, I meant the direction that the thread has taken.

 I take it you didn't read my previous post? You want to talk crap with V-bird, be my guest

I didn't mean to strike a cord like that, my only intention was to further understand what V-Bird was trying to say. If it is crap that he's talking then that will become evident when he replies.

 But the more of that goes on the less likely I will get involved as I have no patience for this.

Point taken...but do be patient with us who are not trying to talk crap, but who do have full intentions on learning.

Im just trying to engage in a conversation for the purpose of understanding, whatever your particular feelings may be towards V-Bird may make you disengage from a conversation with him, but because I am just musing with him for the sake of musing, I don't take what he says so seriously. And again, if he's full of shit it will become evident.

 This message is a reply to: Message 67 by cavediver, posted 11-04-2008 2:36 PM cavediver has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 70 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-04-2008 2:59 PM onifre has responded

New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11707
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.3

 Message 70 of 131 (487769) 11-04-2008 2:59 PM Reply to: Message 69 by onifre11-04-2008 2:54 PM

Re: Thin Ice.
 And again, if he's full of shit it will become evident.

 This message is a reply to: Message 69 by onifre, posted 11-04-2008 2:54 PM onifre has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 71 by onifre, posted 11-04-2008 3:02 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

onifre
Member (Idle past 483 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008

 Message 71 of 131 (487770) 11-04-2008 3:02 PM Reply to: Message 70 by New Cat's Eye11-04-2008 2:59 PM

Re: Thin Ice.

Point taken...

 This message is a reply to: Message 70 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-04-2008 2:59 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 1176 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005

 Message 72 of 131 (487779) 11-04-2008 4:33 PM Reply to: Message 68 by V-Bird11-04-2008 2:53 PM

Re: Thin Ice.
Hi V-Bird - as much as I have no time for your own take on space-time physics, I am humbled by your restraint and grace in the face of my impatient belligerence :) All credit to you...

And if anyone was wondering, VB and I have crossed paths elsewhere in the past, so this is not new. VB has his own ideas that simply take a different path to that taken by the rest of the physics community 100 years ago when Minkowski introduced his space-time concepts to Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity. Einstein took this wholly on board and is absolutely central to his General Relativity. It is also central to our understanding of Quantum Field Theory. As anyone who follows my posts will be aware, GR and QFT are the two most successfully tested theories known to man. Essentially, VB is arguing with concepts from 100 years ago. We are now so far beyond this level of thinking that it seems bizarre to back-track to address it. But then, we have been back tracking to Newton with Buzsaw's ridiculous cosmological ideas!

I cannot stress strongly enough that the ideas I am presenting here are not soley my own, but are based on the concensus of modern day cosmology, relativity, and theoretical phsyics. I will be pushing into my own speculation, but this will be where we go beyond current understanding, and I will be presenting multiple options with no pretense that any one has supporting evidence.

If anyone is interested in VB's ideas, I suggest opening a new thread.

 This message is a reply to: Message 68 by V-Bird, posted 11-04-2008 2:53 PM V-Bird has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 73 by V-Bird, posted 11-04-2008 5:08 PM cavediver has not yet responded

V-Bird
Member (Idle past 3118 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004

 Message 73 of 131 (487780) 11-04-2008 5:08 PM Reply to: Message 72 by cavediver11-04-2008 4:33 PM

Re: Thin Ice.
That's cool then.

If I may though, one correction... I do and always have accepted that to understand the cosmos it is essential that we consider 4 dimensions. I just see them as measurements of energy and its forces not items of solidity/fluidity.

I'll shut up now and let the thread take its course for the most part without me.

 This message is a reply to: Message 72 by cavediver, posted 11-04-2008 4:33 PM cavediver has not yet responded

johnfolton
Suspended Member (Idle past 3124 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005

 Message 74 of 131 (487782) 11-04-2008 7:19 PM

I personally think cosmologists have all been brainwashed preaching hubbles gospel that every point in the universe is the center of the universe to explain redshift. When they willfully are aware that the redshift can also be interpreted as evidence that the earth and the milkey way is located in center of the universe.

Every point in space was the center of the universe was invented by hubble because it conflict withs the earth being within the center of the universe because the redshift without hubbles invented hypothesis the redshift is evidence the earth is located within the center of the universe.

I personally think the Bosse-Einstein condensate has more to do with the expansion creation of the universe instead of a big bang due heat the heat came after the condensates expanded, this is kinda opposite to what were being taught but likely more accurate that a cold big bang where all points in space is not the center of the universe but where the earth is within the center of the universe, from where all these condensate seeds came forth expanding outward, from a common center, etc...

P.S. Is space expanding from a common center as the christian big bang suggests or is every point in the universe the center of the universe meaning no big bang. The expansion seems to make more sense that its accelerating faster at the fringes away from the center due all points of the universe is not the center and that the milkey way could be the very center of the universe, and that true nothingness at the fringes is aiding the acceleration of the expansion more at the fringes of the known universe than here in the milkey way.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

john6zx
Member (Idle past 2353 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 01-27-2007

 Message 75 of 131 (487783) 11-04-2008 9:10 PM Reply to: Message 54 by cavediver11-04-2008 4:29 AM

Re: Future and Past Ramblings
Quote by john6zx:

“There is no physical scientific evidence that time, space, or dimensions are anything more than man made measurements.”

 “No, none at all, unless you consider the whole of the past 100 years of relativistic and quantum field physics. Anyway, it does seem that there have been some genuine questions regarding the role of dimensions, in amongst the bleating of the ignorant, so I will get around to addressing this topic. As a hint to the readers, if anyone starts making proclamations that space and time aren't things and are just measurements, and that real things are energy, etc, etc, then you need to actually ask them what they mean by 'things', 'energy', 'measurement', 'dimensions', etc. The fact is that they are peddling words with zero understanding. And if anyone thinks that I am doing the same, then call me on it.”

 No, none at all, unless you consider the whole of the past 100 years of relativistic and quantum field physics.

It is all theory and there is no phenomena of space or time that has been observed or perceived. There is no scientific reference book that states space or time are physical things. If I were to state something were a real physical thing, and you seem to think different, then it would be up to me to provide evidence.

The burden of proof that space and time is on you. You are avoiding giving evidence by bringing up this stuff about what does real mean. You know the definition of real, but just to help you out I will tell you to look up the definitions of real, dimensions, things, etc. That is where you will find what I mean when I use those terms.

All the talk about space curving, bending, expanding, or doing all of that kind of stuff is all based on theory. It is all very well to have a lot of theories. Theories are great. As long as you do not have phenomena, you can have all the theories you want to. That is the rule in engineering, physics, and the other sciences. You get a theory and then you try to apply it, and if it doesn’t apply to the physical universe you throw it out and get another one.

Unfortunately, the field of physics has been able to accumulate a terrific number of theories without running into any phenomena to prove or disprove them. Unless you have a phenomena to back up a theory, unless you can measure these phenomena, and measure them accurately, they still remain as a theory, something that is unproven.

If you believe that dimensions, space, time, are real things then tell me what they are made of, what form do they take? Solid? Liquid? Gas? Energy?

Look, if we experience matter then it is real for us, that is the basis for our reality.
Knowledge itself is certainty. To obtain certainty one must be able to observe or perceive.

If a man can stand before a tree and by sight, touch or by other perception know that he is confronting a tree and be able to perceive its form and be quite sure he is confronting a tree, we have a knowledge or certainty of that tree.
So tell me what is YOUR experience of space that tells you that space is a real physical thing? Do you have one?

Please don’t play this game of semantics and just give documented scientific observation or measurement that this space thing is a physical thing. Tell me what this thing is that is said to curve, bend, is made of? The same goes for time.

We are to believe that there is a thing called the fabric of spacetime that exists as a real thing. If you believe this than tell what is this spacetime thing made of and in what medium does it exist?

 The fact is that they are peddling words with zero understanding. And if anyone thinks that I am doing the same, then call me on it.”

The words that I am using have definitions and can be understood. All you need to do is do some study.

I am calling you on it. I will keep it simple. What is your understanding of the term space, what does space mean to you?

I will bet that you do not give any scientific evidence that backs up your belief in the physical reality of space, and just try to discredit me, or say that I am ignorant or something, or tell me what Einstein said, all in an effort to avoid the fact that you have no proof.

Lets see if I am wrong.

 This message is a reply to: Message 54 by cavediver, posted 11-04-2008 4:29 AM cavediver has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 77 by cavediver, posted 11-04-2008 9:39 PM john6zx has responded

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)
 Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next