Gravity Works Like This

[Undefined]

Since we're using words, we must be talking about some abstract construct.

I can use the word "Clock" and refer you to the real processing energy-space feature sitting on my bedside table.

You use the word "Time", can you refer to your abstract construct other than pointing to some real processing energy-space feature such as a real "Clock" construct as I did when I said "Clock"?


Nice try. But no cigar. Try again.

 

[Undefined]

Hi Grumpy. Just got outta bed to have some Chard & Chicken soup to keep up the hydration/nutrition. So, while I let that settle some before going back and lying down again, I'll briefly answer your/PhysBang's posts.

Yes, our definition and description of time are inventions for our convenience, but whether there are events or not to measure and define time, it is still a real property of spacetime.

I just said in reply to PhyBang:

Since we're using words, we must be talking about some abstract construct.

I can use the word "Clock" and refer you to the real processing energy-space feature sitting on my bedside table.

You use the word "Time", can you refer to your abstract construct other than pointing to some real processing energy-space feature such as a real "Clock" construct as I did when I said "Clock"?

So can you do what PhysBang can't do there, Grumpy?

I didn't want to insult your intelligence by treating it as if you actually believed such non-sense. But in the absence of energy you have time passing at it's maximum rate, your inability to measure that passage(however much it causes you vapors) in the absence of energy is really a personal problem, the Universe could not care less. And you STILL haven't tackled the slope from high energy/slow time to low energy/fast time and what mechanism turns the lights out for time when it is at it's maximum rate when the last energy leaves(and turns them back on if a single erg appears). This is gibberish, time doesn't care one bit if you can measure or describe it. Energy in no way makes time exist, it makes it measurable and it only slows down time's rate. Any natural process can be used as a clock, a clock allows you to measure time, but time passes whether you have a clock or not. Clocks do not create the time they measure, they describe it in standardized terms we humans can understand. They are subject to time's rate(as are all natural processes), not the other way round.

Did you not understand what Sir Roger Penrose recently pointed out that in a 'heat death scenario of universal expanding universe' there would be nothing but ever-increasing wavelength photons?

And that without processing energy-space mass features/events, there IS NO meaningful physical 'time' or 'timing' RATE at all in the event-absent energy-space! As you and the other experts have been wont to repeat ad nauseum to me and others: "Time STOPS for lightwaves!"

So, do you STILL want it both ways, Grumpy? Do you still say there would still be 'time' rate at all in a photon-only universe? Or can you admit that your impression about that is a purely philosophical concept you are overlaying on reality there?

That would put an end to any PHYSICALLY meaningful concept of time and time rate. The only thing left would be the PURELY philosophical (assuming there is someone around to philosophize!) concept of some sort of 'persistent duration of existence' that goes on 'as abstract idea' irrespective of the non-existence of mass/clocks/processes/events by which to make sense of 'philosophical duration' via some localized motion/change in mass energy-space which we can point to and refer to as a ;standard' for some 'physically meaningful parsing' of 'duration' concept.

Do you understand this?

It not philosophical to accept spacetime as an accurate model of how the Universe works. It is, however, logical.

Please see above my answer to PhysBang. Your philosophical 'overlay' is obvious once you realize there is a difference between 'duration' irrespective of any process/events by which to 'meaningfully parse it physically', and the 'time/timing' abstraction derived from observations/comparisons of some physical processes/events.

OK now?

 

[Russ_Watters]

I can use the word "Clock" and refer you to the real processing energy-space feature sitting on my bedside table.

Since "energy-space" is a word you made-up that has no definition and definitions are determined via convention, I'll provide a definition that I'm sure the consensus will adopt:
"energy-space" is the act of Undefined and Farsight each giving everyone in the thread $10. So the above translates to
"I can use the word "Clock" and refer you to the real processing I'm giving everyone in the thread $10 feature sitting on my bedside table."

Cumbersome, grammatically, to be sure, but since most of your writing is, I don't think it will make the grammar any worse.

 

[Undefined]

Since "energy-space" is a word you made-up that has no definition and definitions are determined via convention, I'll provide a definition that I'm sure the consensus will adopt:
"energy-space" is the act of Undefined and Farsight each giving everyone in the thread $10. So the above translates to
"I can use the word "Clock" and refer you to the real processing I'm giving everyone in the thread $10 feature sitting on my bedside table."

Cumbersome, grammatically, to be sure, but since most of your writing is, I don't think it will make the grammar any worse.

There is energy for real. There is space for real. Unlike the unreal abstract mathematical construct of space-time, of which only one part is real...the 'space' part.

If fundamentally the only real things are energy and space, then energy-space is self-defining. And a much more useful realistic context for modeling the real universal energy and space phenomena.

If they can invent the 'photon' label for the real quantum of radiant energy entity, it is no great feat or crime against science to do the bleeding obvious thing and call the energy and space universal substrate 'energy-space'.

What's your angle with all the lame semantics and personal nit-picking of things which should be self-evident to even the most obtuse interlocutor when the context and known terms/entities are discussed and known already as background info understood by everyone except said obtuse interlocutors intent on concentrating on everything BUT the relevant salient points in discussion? Take an aspirin and relax and enjoy the discussion instead of trying to divert it with inane inconsequentials. Thanks.

 

[Russ_Watters]

That post cost you $20.

 

[PhysBang]

I can use the word "Clock" and refer you to the real processing energy-space feature sitting on my bedside table.

You use the word "Time", can you refer to your abstract construct other than pointing to some real processing energy-space feature such as a real "Clock" construct as I did when I said "Clock"?


Nice try. But no cigar. Try again.

You make all kinds of assumptions about the universe, including my intentions and my actual written words, without looking at what there is to observe relevant to your claims.

 

[PhysBang]

Please see above my answer to PhysBang. Your philosophical 'overlay' is obvious once you realize there is a difference between 'duration' irrespective of any process/events by which to 'meaningfully parse it physically', and the 'time/timing' abstraction derived from observations/comparisons of some physical processes/events.

Do you think that it is meaningful to keep something in physics that can't possibly make a make a physical difference?

 

[Farsight]

There is energy for real. There is space for real. Unlike the unreal abstract mathematical construct of space-time, of which only one part is real...the 'space' part.

If fundamentally the only real things are energy and space...

Don't leave out motion. There is motion for real. Until of course you start talking about infinite time dilation and black holes and the beginning of the universe.

 

[Grumpy]

RC

There is energy for real. There is space for real.

There is spacetime for real, it is the container, and energy(in any of it's forms or activities)is that which is contained.

If they can invent the 'photon' label for the real quantum of radiant energy entity, it is no great feat or crime against science to do the bleeding obvious thing and call the energy and space universal substrate 'energy-space'.

A slurry of glass particles in water is not a glass of water, you can't mix the contained with the container. Spacetime is the stage upon which all events happen(energy, speed, matter), whether a play is currently in progress or all the lights are off, the stage empty.

Photon-a quantum of radiant energy, having both a particle nature(it is discrete and does not interact with other photons), and a wave nature(it travels through spacetime as a wave of electromagnetic energy). It has no rest mass and travels through spacetime at c. It also experiences no time, to it, it's moment of emission and of adsorption are the same moment. The word "Photon" contains all of that but is easier, clearer and simpler to write down. Some of that kind of simplicity would make your posts ...decipherable. Without such terms our writing and speech would be awkward and unnecessarily convoluted, you know, like your posts. If you cannot get your idea out in simple declarative sentences, each with a single complete thought, strung in a series leading down the tracks you want your train of thought to travel down no one will ever be able to understand you, or is that the goal?

"Time STOPS for lightwaves!"

No, time stops for anything traveling at lightspeed.

The gobbledegoop you post is not worth any more of my time, see the other thread for my answer. In fact, these two threads should be merged or a "clean " one opened to stop this needless duplication. I'll even let one of you two start it, take your best shot.

Grumpy

 

[Maxila]

When Einstein produced his work he did not know the Universe was expanding at all, he thought it was static, he was wrong about that….

….But Einstein showed that to be true in 1906, but he made no mention of an expanding Universe, he thought it was static, he put in the Cosmological Constant to keep it from collapsing in his GR paper.

A few clarifications are needed to your recollections above. Yes, he first thought the Universe was static (neither expanding nor contracting); however he recognized his math showed the Universe must be either expanding or contracting, he ad-hock put in the cosmological constant, to keep the Universe static. As evidence mounted the Universe was expanding he realized the constant was a mistake, he only added it to conform to his belief the Universe was static, which he later referred to as his greatest blunder.

The largest structures in the Universe today are the voids between strands of matter that are almost completely empty. That's about all we know. None of this has anything to do with Relativity.

This is in error, the expansion of space is the domain of GR, observed red-shift is not only due to the Doppler shift (objects receding away), there is an added component to that redshift for the expansion of space itself which is the domain, and calculated via GR (Einstein’s original model absent the ad-hock cosmological constant).

Observations say the Universe's expansion is accelerating, this represents a huge amount of energy(representing 75% of the total mass of the Universe)

The expansion conclusion is a result of, observations of red-shift due to the Doppler effect, also accounting for additional red-shift predicted in the expansion of space via GR, and the unexpected faintness of supernovae seen with that total red-shift. Dark Energy was necessary to validate the red-shift prediction of GR for the expansion of space, which did not match up with the faintness (distance) to the observations of supernovae.

Those observations forced us to either conclude GR’s prediction for the expansion of space and its red-shift were wrong, or there is a mysterious form of energy causing the Universe to expand faster than GR predicted. We choose to keep GR intact and create dark energy to explain the observations.

I am pressed for time so I haven’t looked for links to include, if you can’t find references showing what I’ve said is correct, tell me and I will take some time to find proper references for the information at a later date.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Maxilla, you have now acknowledged that "We chose to keep GR intact..." so we should be all good now.

 

[Maxila]

Maxilla, what you are saying is akin to having your car break down and saying that proves thermodynamics wrong. The fact that the standard model has had to be changed to account for observations doesn't mean adjustments were made to GR, it means they were made to the standard model.

Rather than continue with this inane is not/is to argument, just do this: show us the actual equation that changed.

Please quote what I said that you are referring too, and be a little more specific. It's not apparent to me when reading the above.

 

[Grumpy]

Maxila

A few clarifications are needed to your recollections above. Yes, he first thought the Universe was static (neither expanding nor contracting); however he recognized his math showed the Universe must be either expanding or contracting, he ad-hock put in the cosmological constant, to keep the Universe static. As evidence mounted the Universe was expanding he realized the constant was a mistake, he only added it to conform to his belief the Universe was static, which he later referred to as his greatest blunder.

I see no difference between what I posted and this, you've clarified nothing.

This is in error, the expansion of space is the domain of GR, observed red-shift is not only due to the Doppler shift (objects receding away), there is an added component to that redshift for the expansion of space itself which is the domain, and calculated via GR (Einstein’s original model absent the ad-hock cosmological constant).

Wrong again, Einstein did ad hoc his CC to keep the Universe static. He did not know that the Universe was expanding or contracting(and considered the possibility low). And all the Doppler shift is caused by apparent speed due to expansion, not speed through spacetime itself. Almost no objects in the Universe have real speed through spacetime that is significant(relatively), they are all relatively stationary in their own spacetime. Even millions of miles per hour is insignificant in terms of red shift.

The expansion conclusion is a result of, observations of red-shift due to the Doppler effect, also accounting for additional red-shift predicted in the expansion of space via GR

GR did not predict expanding spacetime, but all redshift is due to that expansion. Relativity is not Cosmology, it is Physics.

Dark Energy was necessary to validate the red-shift prediction of GR for the expansion of space, which did not match up with the faintness (distance) to the observations of supernovae.

Dark Energy is Cosmology, it has to do with the RATES of expansion, not the redshift it causes, the rates are measured with redshift, there is no prediction of expansion in GR. Redshift for speed is SR.

Those observations forced us to either conclude GR’s prediction for the expansion of space and its red-shift were wrong, or there is a mysterious form of energy causing the Universe to expand faster than GR predicted.

Spacetime expansion is not a prediction of Relativity, thought the redshift that revealed that expansion is explained by SR and the laws of motion(apparent as well as actual).

You should actually read the papers, you have some huge misconceptions, though it does not seem you are completely off the rails, as some others are.

Grumpy

 

[Maxila]

Maxila

Relativity is not Cosmology, it is Physics

...rates are measured with redshift, there is no prediction of expansion in GR. Redshift for speed is SR.

Spacetime expansion is not a prediction of Relativity, thought the redshift that revealed that expansion is explained by SR and the laws of motion(apparent as well as actual).

You should actually read the papers

"It is well established that the cosmological redshift originates from a general-relativistic Process"

From the paper "REDSHIFT AND ENERGY CONSERVATION" at Cern here http://cds.cern.ch/record/777175/files/0407077.pdf

"IN 1915, ALBERT EINSTEIN PUBLISHED HE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY, WHICH HAS BEEN THE FOUNDATION OF OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNIVERSE EVER SINCE. THE THEORY DESCRIBES A UNIVERSE THAT HAS TO EITHER SHRINK OR EXPAND"

From Nobel Prize Org http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/popular-physicsprize2011.pdf

Wrong again, Einstein did ad hoc his CC to keep the Universe static.

That's exactly what I said???

Quote Maxila: "he ad-hock put in the cosmological constant"

Correcting you is exhausting, I can’t reply again to such glaring mistakes.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Please quote what I said that you are referring too, and be a little more specific. It's not apparent to me when reading the above.

Unfortunate timing: I misread and missed that you have apparently reversed your previous assertion of known flaws in GR and so I edited my post. As long as I've correctly read your reversal, we're all good.

 

[Maxila]

Unfortunate timing: I misread and missed that you have apparently reversed your previous assertion of known flaws in GR and so I edited my post. As long as I've correctly read your reversal, we're all good.

I saw that, thank you.

 

[Grumpy]

Maxila

Correcting you is exhausting, I can’t reply again to such glaring mistakes.

You've yet to correct anything I have posted and have totally failed to address most of what I have posted. This response is totally out of bounds for anything I have posted. Of course, given the history of failure of those who say you know something about Relativity, could it just be dread?

Grumpy

 

[Undefined]

That post cost you $20.

Your trolling has been noted. You were answered properly and you come back with that evasion of the point made. Not a good look, for supposed 'scientist', Russ. Do better.

 

[Undefined]

Hi PhysBang.

You make all kinds of assumptions about the universe, including my intentions and my actual written words, without looking at what there is to observe relevant to your claims.

Not at all. Here is what you said to my pointing out the implied agreement by you regarding regular OR non-regular MOTION being the 'clocking system from which we DERIVE time abstract analytical tool/values....

So you agree that whatever the regularity or not involved, it is the clock processing matter/energy rate that is then abstracted for some mathematical convenient graphing values/dimension axis called 'time' as part of the mathematical-only space-time abstract construct?

Since we're using words, we must be talking about some abstract construct.

So you trying to avoid the obvious is getting down to semantics and tactics of evasions and strawmanning? Not a good look for you as a supposed 'scientist', PhysBang.

Do you think that it is meaningful to keep something in physics that can't possibly make a make a physical difference?

Funny, I could have sworn that was EXACTLY what I was trying to get Grumpy to STOP doing with his insisting and conflating that purely NON-physical PHILOSOPHICAL notions of 'time and time rate existing' even without any mass events represented physically active physical 'time rate' extant in such scenario.

I even pointed him to Sir Roger Penrose's recent insights into the 'time' STOPPING for a photon and NON-meaningful physically anymore if just photons existed after 'heat death' scenario.

So your urgings to keep non-physical notions out of physics should be properly directed at Grumpy, mate, not me.

 

[Undefined]

Hi Farsight.

Don't leave out motion. There is motion for real. Until of course you start talking about infinite time dilation and black holes and the beginning of the universe.

That was specifically in answer to Russ's question of what 'energy-space' itself was. It concerned the 'underlying energy-space' itself, rather than the dynamical processing OF/IN said underlying energy-space itself.

Naturally we observe the processing of that energy-space as the dynamical features and phenomena which arises in, evolves/moves in/across and subsides in that underlying energy-space. Real energy-space, not mathematical 'spacetime' construct which is analytical tool for modeling/predicting the dynamics of said energy-space processing/motion relativities via a 'time' factor derived from said observations of and comparisons between MOTIONS/PROCESSES in/of massed energy-space features.

Cheers.