Time is NOT the 4th dimension...

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by stateofmind, Sep 28, 2011.

  1. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    422
    Now unfreeze it. In the next 1 second frame the light from the big bang has now occupied a new region of empty space while it traveled outward. Or did it create a new region of space? How would the light "create" a new region of space and what did it create that new space in?

    Thats why I would say you can have empty space, because it seems a lot more logical to say light travel to a new region of empty space than saying light created new space. What does light create new space in? space?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    BdS

    So you think Albert Einstein was just wrong? Personally, since he did bring together the disparate thoughts on Relativity into the cogent form we see today, I tend to think Ol' Albert knows a good bit more than you do about the subject.

    Actually, it is the very structural traits of the Universe(Al called it spacetime)that DICTATE that no space is empty of the spacetime field(he's not talking about the matter contaminant, he's talking about spacetime itself). The Universe IS that spacetime field and it is IMPOSSIBLE to have space or time without that field existing.

    If you don't know the first thing about a subject maybe you shouldn't expound upon it. Spacetime is how Albert Einstein described the field that pervades the Universe and allows time and space for events to occur within. It is not a physical thing(like Aether would be), it is a property of the field(IE the whole Universe).

    Ever heard of the Big Bang? That's where the spacetime field originated. It is also called the Universe, you may have heard of that, too.

    I hate it when know-nothings say "Well, it's just a theory..." You just know that the stupidest crap imaginable is about to be spewed on the floor. In muggle, theory means wild ass guess(or that's my theory). But to wizards it means a theoretical framework(model, map) of the way reality behaves that has been tested repeatedly but has never been falsified(shown to be wrong). A theory allows you to make predictions about things you don't yet know, and a test of the validity of the theory is whether those predictions turn out to be true. "It's "just a theory" that the sun will appear to rise in the East in the morning." See how stupid that sounds?

    Space and time are a field, the spacetime field, that forms what we call the Universe. It is the stage upon which events occur. Both space and time are not dependent on events to exist, time IS NOT energy "doing it's thing", it is WHEN energy does it's thing in the same exact sense that space is WHERE those events occur. But the field(spacetime field)is everywhere and everywhen in the entire Universe, thus "There is no such thing as empty space" is true, all space is filled with the spacetime field(IE with the space and the time that field created). Nature doesn't care if these things are not intuitive, nature made you to swing from trees(more or less), not to contemplate the scientific basis for existence. The Universe is as we see it, not as we want to see it. Relativity is the best description we have come up with, and it is a pretty good picture of the real thing(the Universe), it has allowed us to make extraordinary predictions, almost all of which have been confirmed by observation and experimentation and NONE of which have turned out to be false. That's as confirmed as science can get, on the same order as the theory that the sun will rise in the East. We don't need to start down the wrong path off into the weeds, there's a superhiway built by several generations of superior scientists using the biggest, most precise and most powerful tools ever made by men that you can speed down to push the real boundaries of what we don't yet know. You don't need to learn how not to build a fire in order to study modern chemistry, you can use your Bic lighter or a Bunsen burner.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    Good morning, Grumpy.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The LHC 'mimic' aspect I allude to is the high-energy states/dynamics involved per se, irrespective of the HYPOTHESIZED 'overlays' about "natural" or "unnatural" depending on your own hypothesized BB 'conditions'. In any case, the event centres in ALL high-energy 'events' ultimately come down to the QM scale/volumes of the fundamental components involved in collisions irrespective of how they come about.

    Moreover, all such events effectively happen in 'flat space', since GR plays little or no part at those energy levels and small volumes and speeds of interaction/differentiation etc.

    Remember also that, according to your past assertions, irrespective of space-time 'curvature' the photon always travels at the same speed and always as if going along 'flat space' paths. Only remote co-ordinate observers see the photon follow a 'curved' path. That is what you have always said, yes?

    And besides, in the BB hypothesis you subscribe to, the initial and continuing escalation of the equally hypothetical INFLATION/EXPANSION process indicates that GR (ie, Gravity) had practically zero part to play, else the inflation/expansion would not have occurred since the whole energy-space 'content' was at 'maximum density'. So GR can effectively be ignored when discussing such hyper-high-energy-space 'conditions' and 'events' involving/producing quark-gluon and other even more fundamental 'conditions', dynamics and 'energy-space states' (like I already suggested occurs in black hole/active galactic nuclei dynamics/deconstructions/evolution etc). Yes?


    As for your earlier statement, that 'time' in flat space is 'the fastest', it contradicts what you have also claimed about the photon "experiences NO time", ie, "time stops" etc.

    Do you see the contradiction/confusion inherent/caused in/by your view of 'time' as being anything MORE than merely the mathematical COMPARATIVE rate 'modeling' construct for describing (but not actually explaining the PHYSICALLY real mechanisms/entities involved in) the EVOLUTION of some PROCESS in/across energy-space expanses/conditions ONLY)? See? It always boils down to 'time' being merely an afterthought by US to compare two or more process rates in/across energy-space.

    The universal process involves time-independent dynamics across energy-space expanses/conditions. The reason why 'everything doesn't happen at once' is obviously because the components/process evolutions are occurring at DIFFERENT energy-space LOCATIONS from each other. Otherwise there would have been no 'universe' of any 'size/dynamics' to speak of. Time simply plays no part per se; but rather is our way of 'parsing' the energy-space expanses and process EVENTS in our mathematical models. Yes? Anything more than that understanding is brought by us and our mathematical constructs/descriptions. And as you already know, geometrical/mathematical SR/GR 'modeling' breaks down when Black Holes and even your own BB Hypothesis scenarios are involved. Period.

    Consider: If you remove the concept of 'time' (as you effectively do when saying the photon 'experiences no time'), you are still left with the energy-space expanse which the photon is clearly PHYSICALLY TRAVERSING EVEN THOUGH 'TIME' has been 'STOPPED' as far as the photon is concerned?

    Do you see now which is the more PHYSICALLY REAL and fundamental (ie, time-independent energy-space process/dynamics), and which is merely OUR mathematical/philosophical conveniences/overlays (ie, time/comparative timings' OF those fundamental physical energy-space processes/entities)? It is WE who have 'invented' the latter 'abstract mathematical construct' in order to ABSTRACTLY model and analyze/predict (which sometimes our GR etc abstract math/geometrical models fail to do, remember?) so that we can make some sense of the observed actual physical essentials of the phenomena, ie motion/change in/through REAL energy-space expanses....which REAL things are STILL THERE even when 'time is stopped', as for the photon. Yes?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Cheers.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    PS: About that Einstein quote/interpretation. I remind everyone that a "QUALITY" or "PROPERTY" of 'something' can be an ABSTRACT THING, especially when that "SOMETHING" is itself an abstract thing....as in the case of the PURELY MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATION/CONSTRUCT like 'space-time' analytical modeling set of equations and graphing conveniences/tools. Never lose sight of what is real essential and fundamental (energy-space expanses and processes/dynamics), and what is QUALITATIVE EXPRESSIONS, overlays and 'connections/association' (like 'space-time' constructs/interpretation) which are mere abstractions DERIVED FROM the ACTUAL OBSERVABLE dynamics/process of those real essential and fundamental things (energy-space expanses and process which are independent of OUR concepts/uses of abstract comparative time/timing analytical tools). Enjoy your discussions and the reality wherever/whoever you are, everyone! Cheers all!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    Undefined

    The difference between spacetime at a certain temperature and a proton collision at that energy is huge. Isolated protons have no opportunity to interact with other protons(or a very limited interaction)in an accelerator, that is not true when everything in spacetime is at that energy level. And the relative velocities are completely missing in uniform spacetime and they remain important ESPECIALLY at the higher energy levels.

    A photon in vacuum follows the geodesic path through spacetime between where/when it was emitted, to where/when it is absorbed, if that spacetime is bent by mass, so is the path, but the photon sees itself following a straight line(a least energy line).

    Inflation happened in the milliseconds before gravity and the other forces were operative. There was no lightspeed limit and spacetime became enormous until gravity and spacetime's lightspeed limit stopped it. We now live in a Universe that has lightspeed in it's structural properties, gravity dominant at shorter distances and DE pushing mass apart at longer distances, oh and a little mass scattered here and there circling the BH drains, the only edge the Universe has.

    Time is dilated 100% at lightspeed, no mass can travel that fast, but energy propagates through the spacetime field AT lightspeed, it's time is 100% dilated, it therefore experiences no time between when the packet of energy was emitted to the point it is absorbed. It's frequency/wavelength is stretched by having to travel further through expanding spacetime, thus it's energy is reduced(energy level is frequency/wavelength dependent), and it's path through spacetime will swerve according to the mass it passes but it still is travelling through spacetime AT lightspeed, even at less than 3 degrees above absolute zero from 13.7 billion years ago. That is why light does not get "tired", it hasn't done anything to get tired of as it had no time to do it in.

    I don't see the problem, Relativity is counterintuitive but it is easily understandable. Space and time are structural qualities/properties of the Universe wide spacetime field, There is no such thing as space that does not contain the time field as well as the space field that created that space. The Universe is, by far, mostly an empty spacetime field. You are talking about how we perceive the Universe and then trying to discard the Universe itself and claim our perceptions are reality, they are not. They are simply a map of the real properties of that Universe and only the Universe really exists. Changes in energy states can dilate time, but they don't create it, it already exists. And time passes at it's fastest rates in the absence of energy, it's slowest rates at the maximum represented by mass at lightspeed or at the event horizon. Do you deny that fact?

    The Big Bang was the only White Hole we know of ever existing. Black Holes are the only edge spacetime has, what is inside can no longer be considered a part of this Universe, apart from their gravity. The math tells us of wormholes and travel backward through time. It is my OPINION that all BHs have wormholes that connect ONLY to the White Hole at the beginning of time. But those are the only two places where Relativity breaks down, all the rest of the Universe acts as I have been telling you.

    You misunderstand, photons still have the time field, it's just dilated to 100% and does not pass for that photon. But the photon still travels through spacetime AT lightspeed, just like a time dilated space traveller would only experience very slow time at near lightspeed. Are you denying that,too?

    Yes, the spacetime field as described by Einstein. Both time and space as properties of that spacetime field. The spacetime field that is what the Universe actually is.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703


    I like that...similar to my own speculative ideas!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    ps..Grumpy..question for you in the " Collapse of the universe is closer than ever "thread.
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703



    Which is why it is often said, that a photon can pass across the entire Universe in an instant, in its own FoR
     
  10. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    Undefined

    Neither the Universe, nor the spacetime that is it's properties is an abstract, they really exist. The mathematical construct is only real in your intellect, it is an abstract thing, but it is only a map that describes the real territory, spacetime. Just because our monkey minds need those abstract constructs to understand reality, it has no effect on reality's well...reality. YOUR MAPS ARE NOT THE REALITY, spacetime is.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    Hi Grumpy.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    What do you mean? The 'spacetime' concept is an abstract mathematical/geometrical construct. As is the 'field' concept. Only the energy-space extent is real physical entity. So any underlying background 'temperature' only relates to energy-space physical entity, not some mathematical 'space-time' or 'field' abstractions.

    Any energy-levels at any epoch of the universal extent/process is what it is. And the temperatures are a consequence of the MOTIONAL states of any and all energy-space constituents whether in the form of the most fundamental energy-states (ie, quark-gluon or even more fundamental states) or the more evolved states such as protons, electrons etc. Any arbitrary connections are made by us, and the processes do what they do according to the motional energy-space states obtaining in any particular local/global processing stages in any particular evolutionary point along a trajectory of possible interactions/dynamics. energy-space and the evolved states of that energy-space into photons, quarks/gluons, electrons etc 'features' are all still energy-space.

    That's what I already said. Which goes to confirm that your argument's reliance on GR states at beginning/expanding etc of BB hypothetical 'spacetime' inflation/expansion etc is neither here nor there wherever higher-energy processes/interactions are concerned (like in LHC, black holes and galactic nuclei processes OR in hypothetical scenario like BB 'beginnings' etc). So, we are agreed on that now?


    Do you realize the implications for your 'time' abstraction in what you just said above about no speed limit for light? You want it both ways with 'time'. If here is no speed limit for light then there was no limit to process rates. Yes? Imagine that! Processing rates, and hence 'timing' rates were 'unlimited'! Only an abstraction/hypothesis without any direct or indirect evidence for such assumptions/interpretations/extrapolations based on a MATHEMATICAL model. You are not talking evidence or reality, but rather pure conjecture beyond the available logical/physical evidence/reasoning. Not in any way valid supporting case for claims that 'time' exists as you think it does. Only the process rate exists. The 'timing/comparisons' of same are our abstractions and modeling conveniences. Period.

    But we just agreed that photons 'see' all energy-space paths as 'flat' and propagate at the same speed irrespective of remote co-ordinate timings. So like I said, you can't have it both ways. Either 'time stops for the photon', or it goes at the 'fastest rate possible in flat space' as you also said. You can't have both.

    This self-contradiction should tell you that our 'time' construct is abstraction/modeling based, and varies according to the particular process and rate involved in energy-space dynamics in/across energy-space conditions/expanses which are REAL.....and not just your 'mathematical field qualities/properties' which are equally abstraction and not reality mechanisms/entities on their own.



    The 'structural qualities/properties' of an abstract 'spacetime 'field' construct is also abstract. Only once the energy-space ITSELF is considered does the true real structure/entities and dynamics of the energy-space processes become evident. And it dos not need 'time' abstraction for the motional states/changes of energy-space to process/evolve. It is the process rates/locations/comparisons that we then 'overlay' in abstract mathematical modeling analysis constructs as 'time'.

    And the rate of 'time' is 'slowest' for photon propagating in energy-space. Yet you have also claimed that 'time' STOPS for the photon in transit. And you can't get any more 'slower time' than STOPPED 'time', can you? You seem to want it both ways but still fail to see that self-contradiction in your arguments.

    And let's be absolutely clear on this point, Grumpy, everyone: As far as anyone or any model can say, there is NO "absence of energy" in the universal energy-space. There are different states of process/evolution dynamics at different locations, but there is NO "absence of energy" at any stage/location in/of energy-space universal extent. Period.

    Hence any 'time concept' abstraction which 'predicts' such an obviously discernible non-sequitur as 'absence of energy-space' is already doomed to invalidity a-priori.



    A "white Hole" is just as HYPOTHETICAL a 'beginning' as the BB hypothesis's interpretation/extrapolation of astronomical observations. And if black holes are merely different states of energy-space per se, there is NO ''edge', but merely PROCESSING DIFFERENCES in/of the energy-space regions in question. Period. If the matter inside black hole features is some fundamental energy-space state like quark-gluon or even more 'exotic' energy-space state 'plasma', then no-one can yet say what will happen in the far distant stages of that process, when the internal states may be sufficiently energetic to re-exit that process and start new ones. These things are being considered even as we speak, and I myself have a possible process/mechanism which would do the job of recycling the Black Hole interior de-constructed energy-space contents (But that's for my book, so you'll understand if I don't reveal any more on that now!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ).


    I previously explained to others that the photon has 'oscillations' by which it propagates, hence MUST have a 'time rate' associated with it. But others kept saying that 'time stops' for the photon. So I gave up trying to explain it to them that there i NO real 'stop' or 'time' as such, but merely DIFFERENT RATE of time in the photon process compared to all the other observed/compared process involving matter/bodies motional states in/across energy-space conditions/rates. So again others want it both ways, even though I already explained all that is actually involved in reality with the photon and any other energy-space process/motion RATE differences, period.

    Again, as I already pointed out earlier above, the 'spacetime' and the 'field' is a purely abstract mathematical/geometrical concept/device for modeling and analysis. The actual physical entity/process it 'abstractly models' is the energy-space and its dynamical consequences due to differing RATES of process in/across differing energy-space regions/conditions. You keep cautioning about the 'map and territory', but there is no 'map', merely 'abstractions' in a mathematical construct. The actual 'territory' is the energy-space and its motional/processing changes which WE compare and measure etc for analysis and extrapolation/prediction of 'properties' and 'outcomes' of whatever the processes/entities MAY be in reality, but so far not actually IDENTIFY as to physical nature and mechanisms for REAL.

    An example in point: We can abstractly speak of 'spacetime curvature' as causing/being 'gravity' etc etc, but we haven't yet actually identify by what PHYSICALLY IDENTIFIABLE (not merely 'mathematically abstractly describable') way/mechanism the presence of mass 'curves' its surrounds and by what means/ways the matter in the surrounds 'couples' to that surrounds and caused to mutually accelerate towards the gravitating body understudy. Only a true explanation of the real physical nature and mechanisms of energy-space processes and interactions/motions/states dynamically real constructs can truly be said to explain gravity phenomenon.



    Sure, the universal energy-space extent and its inherent properties DO exist. No argument. However when we 'describe' it we use abstract mathematical models, and predict abstract mathematical behaviors etc. None of that modeling/prediction etc actually IDENTIFIES or EXPLAINS the physical entities/properties per se. We currently just call these properties 'field' and 'spacetime' aspects which we go on to explore abstractly and compare to real phenomena. Just because we can predict/measure the result of certain observations/phenomena, it does not mean we have identified the mechanism (like for gravity, for example). This is the next big step for science. Only then will science and the mathematics be compatible and complete and consistent with each other and with the actual physical reality. Good luck to us all! Cheers Grumpy, everyone.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2013
  12. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    422
    You're taking that sentence out context means nothing. What I said was his conclusion about there being no empty space was prematurely conjured, because its something we cant prove only allude to.

    What field? where is it? show it to me so we can agree on physical things over delusional theoretical manifestations.

    CMB perhaps?

    Its only you thats mistaking the map (theories) with the territory (nature).

    Yes of course its not physical because you mistaking the map and the territory again. Listen to yourself its not physical its a property, waffle, waffle... Do you understand that all properties in nature are physical or is that type of simple logic too much for you to grasp?

    Nah never heard of them. Comment on the next posts I posted after this one you replied to.

    Yes like your assumption that empty space cant exist and time is some hidden non physical property, a field creating spacetime that you cant prove or even find. Like I said in the next posts your field creating space and originating from the BB is expanding and creating more spacetime as it expands. Now what is that field creating more spacetime in? space?

    Yes we can have multiple types of maps (theories) that will agree on the modeling and produce the same correct results. But, there is only one territory to derive physical conclusions from. Physics needs conclusions not theories, it shouldn't be modeled it must be explained and shown physically when complete, thats why its called physics. We only got theories because we're short on conclusions.

    You obviously dont believe in the below quotes?

    If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it. -Albert Einstein
    Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. -Albert Einstein
    We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. -Albert Einstein
     
  13. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,853
    From my Post #262
    (x, y, z, t) is a convenient notation for specifying the place & time of an event. It is a convenient notation for use in expressing various laws of physics.

    The above is a convenient model & notation. It is not a reality. The events are the reality. I think some of the Posters here are not aware of the difference between reality & mathematical models used to describe reality.
     

Share This Page