Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 91

Thread: Zenos Universe

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    I am reminded about Hamilton and his quaternians, is that what you mean? Ways to handle vectors ? Are you conflating four dimensions in maths to handle vector products in three dimensional space? I believe quaternians have made a comeback, I am afraid I am still at vector products but suddenly I see something about your OP that was not, IMO well introduced. Or is that all wrong?
    NO
    Our view of the world around us is via Electromagnetic fields. Because the energy of an object is proportional to the square of the AV an electric field cannot propagate in that direction.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,511
    Quote Originally Posted by Quoll View Post
    NO
    Our view of the world around us is via Electromagnetic fields. Because the energy of an object is proportional to the square of the AV an electric field cannot propagate in that direction.
    Well our view of the world is many fields , possibly interacting in strong or weak ways. We think of the fields changing with time. We think of the fields quantised as particles. Can you explain more about your absolute velocity, is it a vector that can be analysed as AVx, AVy and AVz? What element depends on the observer? Or the frame?
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Quoll View Post
    I'm still waiting for you to ask a question that shows that you actually understand this ATM. Most of your questions seem to be the same old tired cut and paste ones and often miss the mark, maybe its my poor ability to explain the concepts.
    You have indeed failed to make me understand anything you're talking about.

    And I keep asking the same questions because your answers keep having the same flaws. I've explained repeatedly that you need to present supporting evidence, with details and data. You have yet to do so.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Quoll View Post
    How do we know that the speed of light is constant?
    ...
    Zenos universe is intended to be like our own with the same results to any experiment that can be performed.

    It has

    Flat Euclidean space...
    That is where Zeno's universe definitely goes wrong. This is obviously not our universe. The physical evidence is that our universe does not have Euclidean space because special relativity effects exist. These do not exist in Euclidean space. The physical evidence is that our spacetime is not flat because GR matches our universe with curved spacetime.

    The rest of the post has obvious errors and misconceptions.
    • "Relativity uses the Block theory and Quantum Mechanics isn't sure if it even exists or not" nonsense.
      "Block theory" does not seem exist. There is the philosophical approach of eternalism ("block time" or "block universe").
      Quantum Mechanics certainly knows that time exists. Special relativity and QM use the same concept of time.
    • The Big Bang, Inflation., Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Black Holes are are not issues. They are what the physical evidence says our universe acts like or has. We always explain what the universe tells us with new physics.
    • Having no time dimension is "not even wrong" because we have clocks!
    • "Absolute velocity" with no time dimension is very wrong. The definition of velocity is a change in position divided by a change in time.
    • E = mc2 is the energy equivalent of a mass. A particle with mass m and velocity v also has kinetic energy that varies with velocity (that does not exist in Zeno's universe!).
    • Observability is nonsense about photons, sources and observers.
      A light source such as a moving star emits light in all directions, Someone observing that star sees photons because they travel between the source and the observer. Of course, photons that do not travel between the star and the observer are not seen.
      Your Zeno in your scenario will not be able to observe anything, including their planet or their star or any satellites. Being gravitational bound has no effect on your scenario. A photon missing the observer will still not be seen. What you are stating is that we cannot see the Moon, the Sun, or the literally billions of objects that we have seen that are not gravitationally bound to the Earth! Gaia spacecraft data release 2 had data on 1.3 billion stars. We have galaxy catalogues with tens of millions of galaxies, none of which are gravitational bound to the Earth. The vast majority are not even gravitational bound to the Milky Way.
    • The Michelson Morley Experiment ignorance.
      The Michelson–Morley experiment is not a measurement of the speed of light and has 2 arms which were not oriented in any special way.
    • The de Sitter Double Star Experiment irrelevance with "AV" and "observability" stories.
      This was a test of SR against "a competing 1908 emission theory by Walther Ritz that postulated a variable speed of light." and produced a negative result.
    • Red shift is a story that everything that is not observed is red shifted based on a fantasy that photon energy needs "a factor of at least cos2(alpha) applied".
    • The end of the universe is a fiction about particles, the very wrong "AV", and collisions magically moving them into a "smaller/bigger universe".

    Ending with an ignorant question. We know what time is. Nothing in your post is relevant to our knowledge of time.

    Overall the OP is a vague story with no matches to our universe.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2021-Jan-10 at 10:49 PM.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Quoll View Post
    In the case of measuring the speed of light the block theory assumes that if light did travel at some other velocity then we could detect it.
    My first formal question, Quoll: Cite your sources for this "block theory" and its assumption that light travels at c.

    Special relativity has a postulate that the speed of light is the same for inertial observers. A postulate is a reasonable conclusion from existing theory that is then tested. Maxwell's equations show that electromagnetic waves (light) travel at a certain speed. The Michelson–Morley experiment suggested (in 1905) there was no aether for light to travel through. A reasonable conclusion is that light always travels at c for inertial observers. Testing the postulate starts with the fact that SR works. Every test of SR is an indirect test of its postulates. Then there is Tests of Einstein's two Postulates. This is not circular reasoning. The experiments are not analyzed with SR so that a constant speed of light is the only possible result. What happens is a "test theory" (a generalization of SR with additional parameters) is used. What we find is the physical data is matched when the parameters are compatible with SR.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    13,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    You posted this thread in ATM, which requires you to give a full and detailed explanation. Read the rules.
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    You have taken on exactly that job, by posting in Against The Mainstream. That's literally the purpose of the ATM sub-foum.
    You are not a moderator, Noclevername and you know how to use the report button.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quoll View Post
    I think I prefer Wikipedia to you Kindergarten Cartoon.
    And that'll be enough of that from either side of the table. If you can't post politely, you can't post here.

    Quoll
    , please review our rules again, especially 13 and 13A, as they relate specifically to the this subforum.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    My first formal question, Quoll: Cite your sources for this "block theory" and its assumption that light travels at c.
    .
    You don't have to look very far. Start with Wikipedia "Eternalism" and "Problem of time" and go from there a lot of it is philosophy but that's because physics is still using "What a clock measures". The point of this ATM is that if you don't know what time is then you don't know that the speed of light is constant and your objections to my ATM fall apart. If you think you know time is I would like to know, please provide references.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Quoll View Post
    You don't have to look very far. Start with Wikipedia "Eternalism" ....
    You missed my previous post about how your idea is not about this curved spacetime, non-Euclidean universe.
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    That is where Zeno's universe definitely goes wrong. This is obviously not our universe. The physical evidence is that our universe does not have Euclidean space because special relativity effects exist. These do not exist in Euclidean space. The physical evidence is that our spacetime is not flat because GR matches our universe with curved spacetime.
    ...
    "Block theory" does not seem exist. There is the philosophical approach of eternalism ("block time" or "block universe").
    Quantum Mechanics certainly knows that time exists. Special relativity and QM use the same concept of time. ...
    Eternalism is a philosophical concept that there is a fixed block of spacetime. Eternalism has been around for thousands of years but there is no limit for speeds in Newtonian physics!

    You did not answer with any sources that support what you actually wrote "In the case of measuring the speed of light the block theory assumes that if light did travel at some other velocity then we could detect it."
    IF01 Cite your sources for this "block theory" and its assumption that light travels at c.

    Next formal questions.
    Where in Problem of time does it state a "block theory" is used in physics, Quoll?
    What the article is really about is the conceptual conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics for the flow of time. What it states is 2 authors think "many of the issues with the block universe" might be fixed with a physical flow of time and a couple of authors have a concept that is not the block universe.

    You asserted that that we do not know what time is again so: Please cite your sources showing that we do not know what time is, Quoll, rather than repeating your unsupported opinion.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    You did not answer with any sources that support what you actually wrote "In the case of measuring the speed of light the block theory assumes that if light did travel at some other velocity then we could detect it"
    I would have thought that it was essential that if you are going to measure the speed of light that you would be working under the assumption that your detector would detect it. We have a null result which doesn't prove that your detector can do it.


    Next formal questions.
    Where in Problem of time does it state a "block theory" is used in physics, Quoll?
    What the article is really about is the conceptual conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics for the flow of time. What it states is 2 authors think "many of the issues with the block universe" might be fixed with a physical flow of time and a couple of authors have a concept that is not the block universe.

    You asserted that that we do not know what time is again so: Please cite your sources showing that we do not know what time is, Quoll, rather than repeating your unsupported opinion.
    Various solutions to GR have shown that worm holes are mathematically possible. Inherent in this must be some concept that the past "really" exits.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    133
    Thank you to all who have contributed to this thread. My circumstances have changed such that I will be on the move a lot for a while. So my computer has been put away and internet access will be limited or non existent. Responding to posts using a mobile phone is tedious so you may need to be patient.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,717
    You might want to request a mod temporarily close the thread by reporting your post. Normally you have 30 days and once that’s over, you aren’t allowed to discuss it further.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    You might want to request a mod temporarily close the thread by reporting your post. Normally you have 30 days and once that’s over, you aren’t allowed to discuss it further.
    Thanks but things will only get worse.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post

    Where in Problem of time does it state a "block theory" is used in physics, Quoll?

    What the article is really about is the conceptual conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics for the flow of time. What it states is 2 authors think "many of the issues with the block universe" might be fixed with a physical flow of time and a couple of authors have a concept that is not the block universe.


    You asserted that we do not know what time is again so: Please cite your sources showing that we do not know what time is, Quoll, rather than repeating your unsupported opinion.

    Having just reread the article makes me wonder how you can re-assert that there is no problem and that the Block universe/theory is not used in any way. Clearly it isn't just my opinion. Your response to it is to belittle those that have contrary opinions to yours.

    You seem to be doubling down on this one.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Quoll View Post
    I would have thought that it was essential that if you are going to measure the speed of light that you would be working under the assumption that your detector would detect it. We have a null result which doesn't prove that your detector can do it.
    You ignored my question. IF01 Cite your sources for this "block theory" and its assumption that light travels at c.
    You seem to repeat ignorance:
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The Michelson Morley Experiment ignorance.
    The Michelson–Morley experiment is not a measurement of the speed of light and has 2 arms which were not oriented in any special way.
    We obviously do measure the speed of light. The SR postulate is that it does not change for inertial observers and it is that which experiments have not detected. The MM experiment is a measurement of the difference in the speed of light caused by a hypothetical aether and the Earth's movement through it. Light is sent down one arm of the apparatus, down the other arm and combined to form an interference pattern. Anything that affects the light in only 1 arm will shift the fringes in that pattern. The results are shifts within the experimental limits, i.e. null results. That shows there is no aether.

    Then you debunk your claim that GR uses a "block theory" which does not have a past (a block universe or eternalism as you cited) with that GR does have a past. That is an obvious fact. For example, we take the GR solution for the current universe and run it back in time to get past conditions.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2021-Jan-12 at 08:34 PM.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Quoll View Post
    Having just reread the article makes me wonder how you can re-assert that there is no problem ....
    Nothing to do with my questions or my post.
    IF02: Where in Problem of time does it state a "block theory" is used in physics, Quoll?
    IF03: Please cite your sources showing that we do not know what time is, Quoll, rather than repeating your unsupported opinion.

    A "Your response to it is to belittle those that have contrary opinions to your opinion" error. I wrote what the article stated, belittled no one and did not state an opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Where in Problem of time does it state a "block theory" is used in physics, Quoll?
    What the article is really about is the conceptual conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics for the flow of time. What it states is 2 authors think "many of the issues with the block universe" might be fixed with a physical flow of time and a couple of authors have a concept that is not the block universe.
    Problem of time has nothing about a "block theory" but has this about the block universe.
    Avshalom Elitzur and Shahar Dolev argue that quantum mechanical experiments such as the Quantum Liar[18] provide evidence of inconsistent histories, and that spacetime itself may therefore be subject to change affecting entire histories.[19] Elitzur and Dolev also believe that an objective passage of time and relativity can be reconciled, and that it would resolve many of the issues with the block universe and the conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics.[20]

    One solution to the problem of time proposed by Lee Smolin is that there exists a "thick present" of events, in which two events in the present can be causally related to each other, but in contrast to the block universe view of time in which all time exists eternally.[21] Marina Cortęs and Lee Smolin argue that certain classes of discrete dynamical systems demonstrate time asymmetry and irreversibility, which is consistent with an objective passage of time.[22]
    You have not supported your assertion as above in question IF03 so it is so far your opinion.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Nothing to do with my questions or my post.
    IF02: Where in Problem of time does it state a "block theory" is used in physics, Quoll?
    IF03: Please cite your sources showing that we do not know what time is, Quoll, rather than repeating your unsupported opinion.

    A "Your response to it is to belittle those that have contrary opinions to your opinion" error. I wrote what the article stated, belittled no one and did not state an opinion.

    Problem of time has nothing about a "block theory" but has this about the block universe.

    You have not supported your assertion as above in question IF03 so it is so far your opinion.
    Are you just being pedantic about my use of the term Block theory instead of block universe?

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Nothing to do with my questions or my post.
    IF02: Where in Problem of time does it state a "block theory" is used in physics, Quoll?
    IF03: Please cite your sources showing that we do not know what time is, Quoll, rather than repeating your unsupported opinion.

    A "Your response to it is to belittle those that have contrary opinions to your opinion" error. I wrote what the article stated, belittled no one and did not state an opinion.

    Problem of time has nothing about a "block theory" but has this about the block universe.

    You have not supported your assertion as above in question IF03 so it is so far your opinion.
    Are you just being pedantic about my use of the term Block theory instead of block universe?

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Quoll View Post
    Are you just being pedantic about my use of the term Block theory instead of block universe?
    No. You are just wrong and derailing from my questions. The name block universe is used because it is not a scientific theory. It is a philosophical concept or model of the universe, e.g. Minkowski spacetime is a block with no distinction between past, present or future.
    IF01 Cite your sources for this "block theory" and its assumption that light travels at c.
    IF02: Where in Problem of time does it state a "block theory" is used in physics, Quoll?
    IF03: Please cite your sources showing that we do not know what time is, Quoll, rather than repeating your unsupported opinion.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2021-Jan-13 at 01:15 AM.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    133
    Flat Euclidean space...


    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    That is where Zeno's universe definitely goes wrong. This is obviously not our universe. The physical evidence is that our universe does not have Euclidean space because special relativity effects exist. These do not exist in Euclidean space. The physical evidence is that our spacetime is not flat because GR matches our universe with curved spacetime.
    The question is, are those effects due to curved space time or to changes in the properties of the observed matter and light?


    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post

    Special relativity and QM use the same concept of time.
    I don't think so.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post

    The Big Bang, Inflation., Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Black Holes are are not issues. They are what the physical evidence says our universe acts like or has. We always explain what the universe tells us with new physics.
    These problems have been around for longer than most people on earth have been alive! And there has been little if any progress on them for decades. To say that they are "not issues" is a profound denial of the obvious.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post

    Having no time dimension is because we have clocks!
    A clock is a measuring tool it doesnt mean we know what it is measuring. All the clock mechanisms I know of measure a distance and compare it with a speed to derive what is defined to be a composite of a distance and a speed. So why should we consider time to be fundamental.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post

    "Absolute velocity" with no time dimension is very wrong. The definition of velocity is a change in position divided by a change in time.
    Apparently one of the US state legislators defined pi to be 3.2. I don't think the universe cares what we define.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post

    E = mc2 is the energy equivalent of a mass. A particle with mass m and velocity v also has kinetic energy that varies with velocity (that does not exist in Zeno's universe!).
    The thing with velocity vectors is that they add up to one vector. Each particle will have its own AV, its own local reference frame.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post

    Observability is nonsense about photons, sources and observers.

    A light source such as a moving star emits light in all directions, Someone observing that star sees photons because they travel between the source and the observer. Of course, photons that do not travel between the star and the observer are not seen.

    Your Zeno in your scenario will not be able to observe anything, including their planet or their star or any satellites. Being gravitational bound has no effect on your scenario. A photon missing the observer will still not be seen. What you are stating is that we cannot see the Moon, the Sun, or the literally billions of objects that we have seen that are not gravitationally bound to the Earth! Gaia spacecraft data release 2 had data on 1.3 billion stars.* We have galaxy catalogues with tens of millions of galaxies, none of which are gravitational bound to the Earth. The vast majority are not even gravitational bound to the Milky Way.
    I don't know how you come to this conclusion. It would help if you tried to understand Zenos Universe before you critisise it. If something I have written isn't clear or the reasoning isn't correct. Then try pointing to it and asking for clarification. Don't just continue with an erronious understanding to arrive at an absurd end point.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post

    The Michelson Morley Experiment ignorance.

    The Michelson–Morley experiment is not a measurement of the speed of light and has 2 arms which were not oriented in any special way.*

    The de Sitter Double Star Experiment irrelevance with "AV" and "observability" stories.

    This was a test of SR against "a competing 1908 emission theory by Walther Ritz* that postulated a variable speed of light." and produced a negative result.
    I know it isn't a measurement of the speed of light.*


    Apart from using it to call me ignorant, what is your point?


    QUOTE=Reality Check;2528042]

    Red shift is a story that everything that is not observed is red shifted based on a fantasy that photon energy needs "a factor of at least cos2(alpha) applied".[/QUOTE]

    Where did the "not" come from?


    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    No. You are just wrong and derailing from my questions. The name block universe is used because it is not a scientific theory. It is a philosophical concept or model of the universe, e.g. Minkowski spacetime is a block with no distinction between past, present or future.

    IF01 Cite your sources for this "block theory" and its assumption that light travels at c.

    IF02: Where in Problem of time does it state a "block theory" is used in physics, Quoll?

    IF03: Please cite your sources showing that we do not know what time is, Quoll, rather than repeating your unsupported opinion.

    You may not like the source I cited, but that doesn't invalidate it. I may be using the term block theory loosely to refer to a model where the past and present are all real. That might be because this type of time model is poorly defined and without experimental evidence.

    The predecessor of our modern understanding of heat proposed that there was a fluid called Caloric which flowed from hot to cold and thermometers were able to measure it. So it must have been true!

    Today we understand that it is the random motion of particles.

    Similarly we think of time flowing from the past to the future via the present and we can measure it with clocks.

    Zenos universe is not unlike the modern view of heat on a big scale.

    You might not like that the disussions about time take the form of a philosophical discussion but in the absense of any real tangable testable theory its all we have.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Quoll View Post
    The question is, are those effects due to curved space time or to changes in the properties of the observed matter and light?
    [...]
    A clock is a measuring tool it doesnt mean we know what it is measuring. All the clock mechanisms I know of measure a distance and compare it with a speed to derive what is defined to be a composite of a distance and a speed. So why should we consider time to be fundamental.
    There are many things that can act as a clock, and how we see them is observer dependent. For instance, how long a particle takes to decay, if you see one moving slowly or another one moving close to the speed of light relative to yourself will be different. But observations of how long it takes you to do something as measured by different observers, will vary as well. Based on all experiments so far, every process we understand as being affected by time will be affected similarly. All physical processes will demonstrate the same consistent observer dependent effects. Absolute changes in properties of observed matter don’t fit the evidence.

    Einstein’s Relativity theory fits the evidence rather nicely. If you want to propose an alternative it needs to do the same, but it doesn’t appear to me that your idea even tries to do this. If you think it does, an explanation would be helpful. It would also need to fit all other observations consistent with (and in a number of cases predicted by) relativity theory. Again, I see no hint that it does.

    The thing with velocity vectors is that they add up to one vector. Each particle will have its own AV, its own local reference frame.
    An absolute velocity in its own reference frame? What do you mean here?

    I don't know how you come to this conclusion. It would help if you tried to understand Zenos Universe before you critisise it. If something I have written isn't clear or the reasoning isn't correct. Then try pointing to it and asking for clarification. Don't just continue with an erronious understanding to arrive at an absurd end point.
    From my own standpoint, your explanations for this Zenos universe idea seem very unclear. I earlier asked some questions which I don’t believe were ever answered, and my impression is that you often argue or respond indirectly rather than answer direct questions, so I haven’t been all that enthusiastic about following up.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,511
    I am still stuck at the beginning. Einstein introduced four dimensional spacetime, x,y,z,t. But you start with x,y,z,? Where. ? Is not time but another spacial dimension. This seems important to your AV per particle , velocity being fundamental but in four dimensions. This model is just not clear as an interpretation of even everyday observation, let alone cosmology. Is this a paradox or just a badly framed question about time?
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Quoll View Post
    Flat Euclidean space....
    Another mostly irrelevant post, Quoll.
    • The physical evidence says that is is impossible for our universe to be a flat Euclidean space. An irrelevant speculation of "changes in the properties of the observed matter and light" dopes not change that.
    • What you think about GR and QM does not matter, The fact is that both have a time dimension and thus the same concept of time. What is different is the treatment of the time dimension.
    • You add to your ignorance about the Big Bang, inflation., dark matter, dark energy, black holes. The Big Bang, Inflation., Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Black Holes are are not issues. They are solutions, not your "problems". A "little if any progress on them for decades" fantasy. Physicists are always making progress in physics. There was the enormous progress of detecting gravitational waves in 2015. P.S. gravitational waves do not exist in flat Euclidean space and are not "changes in the properties of the observed matter and light" (the matter and light uses is here on Earth) .
    • Irrelevant ignorance about about clocks in reply to the fact we have clocks that measure the passage of time, thus having no time dimension is ridiculous.
      In Zeno's universe either nothing happens or everything happens at once !
      Clocks do not "measure a distance and compare it with a speed". What distance and speed is used in your PC clock? Clocks have a periodic mechanism that produces ticks and we count those ticks.
    • You ignore that velocity is defined as a change in position divided by a change in time.
      In Zeno's universe velocity is undefined !
    • "velocity vectors" gibberish in reply to E = mc2 is the energy equivalent of a mass. A particle with mass m and velocity v also has kinetic energy that varies with velocity (that does not exist in Zeno's universe!).
      In Zeno's universe kinetic energy does not exist !
    • Your Zeno in your scenario will not be able to observe anything..
      The scenario is nonsense.
      Observer A will claim to detect source B as soon as they detect a single photon from it (your photon P).
      The "first when the source is coincident with the observer" photon will tell the observer that source B exist. Source B has been detected.
      The second photon is emitted after source B has moved away from A at an angle. A not detecting the second photon merely shows that the photon was not emitted toward A .
      Nonsense about "a two way possibility" when there is only 1 observer!
      "Consequently" nonsense and a deeply ignorant Zeno only detecting there planet and gravitationally bound objects assertion. Ignorant because Zeno will be able to see objects not bound to his planet, e.g. his star, other stars, galaxies. We see objects not bound to the Earth and even have images of the Earth from spacecraft not orbiting Earth.
    • Your OP was ignorant about the Michelson–Morley experiment and the de Sitter Double Star Experiment.
    • The OP has "In other words everything observable is red shifted." so my "not" was wrong.
      But the OP is even worse! Red shift is a shift from a reference. The reference is sources in labs. They have no redshift.

    Ending with a fantasy that you cited any sources answering my questions and yet more irrelevancy!
    You cited Eternalism (philosophy of time) and Problem of time that just mention the block universe.

    IF01 Cite your sources for this "block theory" and its assumption that light travels at c.
    I have emphasized what you really need to support.

    IF02: Where in Problem of time does it state a "block theory" is used in physics, Quoll?
    The answer is that it does not say that. It only contains the phrase "block universe" which you wrongly call a theory.

    IF03: Please cite your sources showing that we do not know what time is, Quoll, rather than repeating your unsupported opinion.
    An irrelevant demand for a "real tangible testable theory of time". We have had real tangible testable theories that include time for centuries. They work!.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2021-Jan-14 at 10:20 PM.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,717
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    I am still stuck at the beginning. Einstein introduced four dimensional spacetime, x,y,z,t. But you start with x,y,z,? Where. ? Is not time but another spacial dimension. This seems important to your AV per particle , velocity being fundamental but in four dimensions. This model is just not clear as an interpretation of even everyday observation, let alone cosmology. Is this a paradox or just a badly framed question about time?
    Yes, I *think* in this idea the fourth spatial dimension is supposed to be a stand-in for the conventional time dimension, is somehow supposed to have the same observed results, and is supposed to solve something he sees as a problem. All this with a Euclidean space.

    But I don’t understand how a space dimension can usefully be a stand-in for a time dimension or what it solves, or how it could fit observations. Much more explanation is needed at least.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    133
    Just a few points


    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post

    Dark Matter, Dark Energy are not issues. They are solutions, not your "problems". A "little if any progress on them for decades" fantasy.*
    "Solutions"! The mind boggles. Denial on grand scale.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post

    Physicists are always making progress in physics. There was the enormous progress of detecting gravitational waves in 2015.

    Whilst this and the image of a black hole recently released were spectacular advances. They were primarily in engineering and experimental physics not theoretical physics.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post

    Clocks do not "measure a distance and compare it with a speed". What distance and speed is used in your PC clock? Clocks have a periodic mechanism that produces ticks and we count those ticks.

    You ignore that velocity is defined as a change in position divided by a change in time.

    Look up the definition of a second. If your clock doesn't measure a distance and compare it to a speed, however obscure the mechanism, then its not a clock.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post

    The scenario is nonsense.

    Observer A will claim to detect source B as soon as they detect a single photon from it

    All you have when you detect a single photon is a single photon. All you know about it is its energy and direction. Nothing else. Until you have a statistically significant number of them you can't claim anything else.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post

    Nonsense about "a two way possibility" when there is only 1 observer!

    Radio communications and radar are examples of two observer situations.


    Your post is full of denial and doubling down.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    13,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    IF01 Cite your sources for this "block theory" and its assumption that light travels at c.
    I have emphasized what you really need to support.

    IF02: Where in Problem of time does it state a "block theory" is used in physics, Quoll?
    The answer is that it does not say that. It only contains the phrase "block universe" which you wrongly call a theory.

    IF03: Please cite your sources showing that we do not know what time is, Quoll, rather than repeating your unsupported opinion.
    An irrelevant demand for a "real tangible testable theory of time". We have had real tangible testable theories that include time for centuries. They work!.
    Quoll,

    In your next post, please answer these questions. If you have already provided an answer to one or more, please link to the post(s).
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Quoll View Post
    Whilst this and the image of a black hole recently released were spectacular advances. They were primarily in engineering and experimental physics not theoretical physics.
    Gravitational wave detection gives us a new window to study physics and astronomical events. Both the detection and imaging confirmed some fairly subtle GR predictions as well, meaning GR is looking good and this raises more hurdles for any alternatives, as they would need to account for these things as well. Heck, for a long time, some were claiming that gravitational waves didn’t exist. I know of ATMers that deny the detection actually happened because it hurts their pet ideas.

    Look up the definition of a second. If your clock doesn't measure a distance and compare it to a speed, however obscure the mechanism, then its not a clock.
    Are you claiming that particle decay can’t be used to measure the passage of time? If so, why? These are direct questions, by the way. I request that you answer them after dealing with Reality Check’s repeatedly asked questions.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Quoll View Post
    Just a few points.. ..
    A mostly irrelevant post, Quoll.

    "Denial on grand scale." ignorance in reply to The Big Bang, Inflation., Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Black Holes are are not issues. The universe supplies us with the problem of Hubble's law and the solution is the Big Bang which has the added benefit of being the solution to many other problems. We detect no magnetic monopoles and the solution is inflation. We measure that galaxy rotation curves do not match predictions and the solution is adding dark matter. We detect that expansion of the universe is accelerating, name whatever solves this problem dark energy and a solution for this observation is the cosmological constant in GR. Black holes started as a solution to GR!

    The Big Bang, Inflation., Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Black Holes are not just theoretical physics, as you seem to think. The first 4 are the Lambda-CDM model. This is a set of scientific theories and an enormous body of empirical evidence. Black holes are a prediction of GR that has been found correct from empirical evidence. The detection of gravitational waves included progress in modeling the merging of black holes and neutron stars.

    Since 1967, the second has been defined as exactly "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom" (at a temperature of 0 K). You are still wrong. There is no distance or speed in the definition of a second. But just in case:
    IF04: Cite your definition of a second where a distance is measured and compared to a speed, Quoll.

    A "statistically significant number of them" (photons) fantasy. When we detect a single photon we know that somewhere along its direction of travel is it's source. Detect more photons and we can be more accurate about the direction of the source.
    Ignorance of your own scenario which has 1 observer and 1 source.
    Quote Originally Posted by Quoll View Post
    Let's consider an observer (A) travelling at a velocity CA. The observer detects a photon (P) that has been emitted from a light source (B). The observer can't claim to have detected the source until further photons arrive from the same location or path. Let's consider just two photons the first when the source is coincident with the observer the second P is emitted some time later. The directions of the observer and source differ by an angle alpha and the relative velocity is in the X direction.
    ...
    Assuming linear motion, any other configuration of the light source with respect to the observer will render it unobservable. Note that observability is not a two way possibility unless alpha is 0.
    There cannot be two-way communication because the source is not an observer. That is why your two way possibility only when alpha is zero is nonsense. What also makes this "Observability" nonsense is that the scenario has a source emitting photons in 1 direction. In our universe light sources (stars, planets, atoms, etc.) emit photons in all directions. In physics, that is what a light source generally does (the obvious exception is a laser). Buy you extend this special case to the universe as a whole!
    This is that case with radar - radio waves bounce off the object ands return to the observer and the source. Radio communications can be one-way or two way.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2021-Jan-17 at 08:46 PM.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    133
    Most introductions to Newtons law of gravity include a thought experiment about firing cannons of ever increasing power till the cannon ball goes right around the earth. Now to argue that cannon balls have always and will always fall to earth misses the point.*

    Zenos Universe is a thought experiment, it is not our universe. I have never said it is. I have pointed out one of the most obvious problems that I called the Voyager problem, so I know it is not our universe. It's a thought experiment that highlights issues with our current lack of understanding about time. If you are aware of some of these issues you may find Zenos universe very surprising. To describe Zenos Universe I have used some shortcuts to simplify it, primarily the assumption of what might be called a fixed reference frame, with a deeper understanding of Zenos Universe it fades in relevence.

    Clearly I have failed to articulate a clear picture of what Zenos Universe is about.

    BUT, there are clear problems with the way the forum is structured, where a single person with a limited understanding of the topic can continually make statements that are just plain wrong, demand proof with references then dismiss them when supplied, demand explanations on basic physics questions that could be easily confirmed with a simple internet search. It should not be the job of the author to teach everyone all the basic physics needed to understand the issue.


    I don't see how this thread can be recovered, so I suggest that the moderators close it.


    Thank you

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Quoll View Post
    Zenos Universe is a thought experiment, it is not our universe. I have never said it is.
    Perhaps I missed it, but I don’t recall where you said it wasn’t meant to be about the universe. I specifically asked you if you were arguing against relativity theory and you never responded. That would have been a good point - and there were a number of others - to point out your actual intentions.

    ATM arguments are normally claims involving the universe, and that is certainly what I assumed, so naturally I argued with that in mind. I expect the same is true of other posters.

    Clearly I have failed to articulate a clear picture of what Zenos Universe is about.
    Clearly. Especially since you repeatedly didn’t clarify your arguments when asked questions. If you had said it was just a thought experiment where we need not be concerned about real science, I wouldn’t have bothered to join the discussion.

    BUT, there are clear problems with the way the forum is structured, where a single person with a limited understanding of the topic can continually make statements that are just plain wrong, demand proof with references then dismiss them when supplied, demand explanations on basic physics questions that could be easily confirmed with a simple internet search. It should not be the job of the author to teach everyone all the basic physics needed to understand the issue.
    I have a rather different view of the situation, like where you made an incorrect claim on what is required to measure time. Hence I asked a question you didn’t answer. But if you thought others were asking questions you had answered, you could have asked the mods to take a look. Instead you just avoided clarifying basic issues like the fact it wasn’t even a science argument.

    Ah, well. Too bad I wasted time on a pointless thread.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Quoll View Post
    Zenos Universe is a thought experiment, it is not our universe. I have never said it is. ...
    The first sentence in your OP is about us in our universe: How do we know that the speed of light is constant? The Big Bang, inflation, dark matter, dark energy are properties of our universe. The Michelson Morley Experiment and de Sitter Double Star Experiment were done in our universe.

    Of course we can think about an imaginary universe with your flat Euclidean space, 4 space dimensions, no time dimension, particles with an "absolute velocity", etc. This has absolutely nothing to do with our universe or our understanding of time.

    You have not asked any physics questions other than the easily answered "How do we know that the speed of light is constant?". We know this because we measure it to be constant and special relativity works with the postulate that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •