Maartenn100

Welk that's indeed the difference with my hypotheses. In my theory all the bodies in the universe have an influence on our clock. Relative to an empty universe our time is going very slow.

What I mean is: with a cosmological expansion there must be an increase of gravitational contracton of hypothetical clocks in the intergalactic expanding regio'ns. Because the influence of the gravity of the rest of the universe on hypothetical clocks in these expanding regions of space decreases more and more. Time flows faster and faster over there. An increasing time contraction over there to infinity. The physics and math already exists. There is Hubble's law and we know that decreasing of mass due to space-expansion between massive bodies causes gravitational timecontraction. Now imagine that the influence of the mass of the bodies of the rest of the universe on the expanding space decreases to infinity. The clock over there will go faster and faster and faster.

Of course there is a huge chance that I'm wrong. And it seems like some things I thought are already been discovered/proven in science. And, I cannot quantify my predictions yet. It's a theory under construction, so to speak. Let me give you some more ideas/unquantifible predictions, and maybe you can tell me wether the ideas already exist or are probable wrong. We know that there is gravitational timedilation. So, there is also gravitational timecontraction. And that happens when two massive bodies are going away from each other. The influence of the mass on the clock between these bodies decreases when the space in between them expands, and there will be a gravitational timecontraction of the hypothetical clocks in the region between these receding massive bodies. So, the further away from us, the more gravitational timecontraction of the hypothetical clocks in intergalactic space. (Hubble's Law about distant receding galaxies) My idea is, that far away, where galaxies or clusters of galaxies are receding at very high speeds due to the socalled expansion of the universe, the time rate passage of hypothetical clocks in the intergalactic regions over here are going faster and faster to infinity. There is a gravitational timecontraction towards infinity outthere. Because the influence of the masses of these clusters of galaxies and the bodies closer to us on the hypothetical clocks in these expanding intergalactic regions of space over there is decreasing to infinity due to Hubble's law. I hope you understand what I mean. The further away, the more gravitational timecontraction, because 'the universe is expanding', so the influence of the gravity on the intergalactic regions decreases towards infinity. Time goes faster and faster far away, relative to our idea of time locally. But I think that an observer in these intergalactic regions far away from us, in this expanding space, doesn't observer these expansions between the galaxies or galaxieclusters locally. But he will 'observe an increasing amount of curvature of spacetime down here. Where we are. Wherever we are, as observers of space, we do not observe expansion nor contraction of spaces locally. We will have a normal observation of space locally. Therefore we will observe expansion and contraction somewhere else. Is this idea already a scientific truth or is it just my idea (and maybe totally wrong).

Actually for this theory to be true, I only have to proof that a different position of an observer in the field of gravity will result in a different observation of the nightsky. It's only necessary to proof that there is a difference. How much (the exact quantificication) is not necessary to proof my hypotheses. The fact that we will observe a different redshift of the emitted light of receding galaxies far away, and this different observation correlates with our different position in the fields of gravity, is sufficient enough to proof that there is a causal relationship beween your position in the gravitational field and what you observe in the nightsky. There must only be a measurable difference in the numbers. You don't need to predict the exact numbers. The fact that there will be a difference is sufficient enough to proof my point. By the way, on forums like this I always see that people expect that you can deliver a new nobel price in science or you meet a lot of hostelity and your idea will be qualified as been complete nonsense. Or you must have a breakthrough in science when you think differently or you are a crackpot. A normal discussion with some interesting pro and contra arguments on a free discussion forum without meeting the standards of a peerreviewed scientific article delivering the next big theory in science is not possibly. Or you accept the scientific concensus of the moment, of these day and age or you are a pseudoscientist, someone with the Dunning Kruger syndrom or a crackpot. When you have different ideas you are been seen as ignorant. Very offensive terms for people who just have different ideas then the scientists of this day and age and want share them on a forum with people with the same intrests.

double small is relative. To an observer in intergalactic space, the timedilation (relative to his clock) of our clocks here on Earth is bigger, then the timedilation on Earth relative to an astronaut's clock orbiting Earth. Therefore, 'timedilation' is a relative statement. That's how I understand it. Every observer will use his own clock (his own idea of normal timeflow) and his own ruler (his own idea of an uncurved/unstretched line) as a standard to measure the amount of curvature, stretch, contraction and dilation of time and space somewhere else. To an observer near a black hole, there is no timedilation of time on Earth, but a timecontraction, relative to his clock near the black hole. He has a different idea of normal timeflow near the black hole. Our time is contracted relative to his clock. Timedilation and timecontraction are relative statements. To us, there is no timedilation of time. There is a timecontraction of the clocks above Earth relative to our idea of a normal timeflow on our clock. Wether there is (gravitational) timedilation and the amount of it depends on who's clock you use to compare the time rate passage. Therefore 'curvature' of spacetime is relative. To an observer near a black hole, space and time are not curved on Earth, but time is contracted and space is expanded, relative to his ruler and clock near the black hole. That's how I understand timedilation/contraction and curvature and stretch of space. These are all relative statements.

I can only give you an experimental prediction, based on my hypothesis. Let me first say something about the special theory of relativity and about how observers perceive space: Imagine a spaceship A is travelling very fast, near the speed of light, relative to an observer in another spaceship B. The fact is that the observers in spaceship A will see that in their own spaceship A/reference frame, time flows as usual and there is no lengthcontraction of their own spaceship noticeable. The laws of Newton work just fine in the own reference frame. The observers in spaceship A and the observers in spaceship B will say that the spacedistortions (lengthcontraction in this case) and the timedilation are happening to the other spaceship, not to their own (from their perspective): the other spaceship contracts, there is timedilation of the clock of the other ship. So, the ruler of the other spaceship is always distorted in relativity. This relativistic observation of space, is (in my opinion) also happening when we look at the night sky into space, wherever we are. Here on Earth, Earth orbiting the Sun in the Milkeyway, there is gravity dilating our clocks and curving our space. (the mass of the cluster, of the Milkey Way, of the Sun and Earth are dilating our clock and curving our space.) But in our own referenceframe we don't experience a timedilation of our clock nor do we experience a curvature of our local ruler (just like in special theory of relativity). But we see spacedistortions somewhere else: we observe the redshift of the emitted light of far away galaxies following Hubble's law. (space-expansion). Experimental predictions: My prediction is: when we are in another field of gravity, we will observe, from that position, another redshift of the emitted light by receding galaxies, due to Hubble's law. The observed space expansion we see far away from us will be different. That's an experimental prediction. The reason is: our idea of time is normal to us in our own reference frame and there is nothing wrong with our ruler, to us. Wherever we are. The laws of Newton work just fine, wherever we are. But when we are in a stronger field of gravity, we will observe more spacedistortions somewhere else. Just like in the special theory of relativity. Another experimental prediction is: locally we will not measure a curved ruler. (curved spaces) in our own reference frame. We can form a perfect triangle with lasers, locally, All the angles in a triangle add up to 180, wherever we are in space, locally. Even when we are close to a black hole. That's a prediction. The huge curvature of space will be seen somewhere else. just like in the special theory of relativity. wherever we are, and to us there will be no curvature of space locally, and our time will not go slower in our experience. (the same duration of the actual moment, wherever we are) Like in the spaceship of the observers of spaceship A. Their ruler and their clock flow normal to them wherever they are. But they know there is a lengthcontraction happening to the other ship. The spacedistortions are always observed somewhere else. Wherever we are. And the reason is: we experience time normal, wherever we are, and we use our own idea of uncurved space in our curved spacetime environement as the standard for the observation of curved or expanding spaces somewhere else.

Maybe it can explain phenomena we can't solve at the moment. Like the observation of the effects of the socalled dark matter or dark energy. My idea is that our position in the gravitational field makes us observe dark matter up there. And it has something to do with our experience of time. With the fact that the duration of the actual moment to us, is everywhere the same, although there is graviational timedilation involved. Therefore we observe these strange phenomena up there. It would solve certain equations we can't solve at the moment. An existing factor we can't measure nor mathematisise: consciousness. It's a blind spot in our observations, a zeropoint in our mathematics. But maybe it can give answers to questions scientists can't solve at the moment.

ok, thanks for the efforts of you all to try to explain to me why it is wrong what I'm thinking. I learn because of that. I'm not a scientist and maybe I do not understand the scientific position enough to reason from there. My wish is to add 'minds' or 'consciousness' to the equations, so to speak. I like the idea that we, conscious beings (humans and animals) have some role to play in nature, one way or the other. Till now it seems like we don't. All the laws of nature work just fine without us, animals and human being. We do not seem to be of any value when it comes to what exists in nature. The laws of physics and chemistry work blindly and they do not need conscious observers. I liked to play with the idea that observers were lawfully connected with their observations/measurements of space and time. So that we could say: consciousness has a crucial underlying role to play, one way or the other, in nature and we, living beings, are some crucial factor here. It seems like reality doesn't need us to play this role. I wanted to defend the idea that consciousness is an undeniable factor in nature, but it seems like it isn't. And don't worry: I do not have some religious agenda here:-)

Where is the fallacy? Time is relative (Einstein) and observers disagree about the time rate passage (premisse) Therefore no one can define an (absolute) age of the universe. (logical conclusion based on valid reasoning) Therefore, the universe in itself has no definable age (according to who's clock?) Please, show me the logical fallacies. My claim is: If you want to know an absolute age for the universe in itself, reference frame independent, use a photon. It will tell you, indeed, that the age of the universe in itself is undefined. A photon does not age. It is the universal clock. It's the absolute reference frame. It has the same properties for every observer. What is the nature of the universe in itself, referenceframe independent? Ask an object with the absolute property c (the speed of light). It is the universal referenceframe. t=0. The universe in itself, reference frame independent, has no timeproperties.

First of all: I'm more a philosopher then a scientist. That's the reason why I placed this topic in philosphy and not in physics on the forum. I'm interested in the philosophical implications for the nature of reality in itself. I don't deny that the math is important. But the philosophical implications (in words) are my focus. The philosophical implication is that we live in a universe where there can not be a universal clock. (Einstein). What is the age of the universe for a photon? An object with absolute (non-relative) properties? Zero. There is your math. I believe (not religious) that if you want a universal clock, use an object with absolute properties for time and space. Use a photon (or another massless object going at c). It will tell you the non-relativistic age of the universe in itself without observers. Zero.

Which religious beliefs? Please explain in detail what religion has to do with it. Where did I mention religious beliefs. So I can understand how you derrive conclusions based on premisses.

the math is already done, we are talking about the theory (in well defined scientific terms) to explain the math.

In this case, it's not about the calculations or the math. The calculations are been done. There were experiments with a comparison of atomic clocks in planes (the influence of speed on clocks) and we have the GPS corrections to prove that gravity has an influence on clocks. I agree (again): the difference is small. It's negligible for practical reasons and reasons of calculation (pragmatism). But it's not negligible for the philosophical implications (about the nature of reality) for in what kind of universe we live. We live in a universe where there can not be a preferenced referenceframe for time (for the age of the universe).

In reality you don't agree about the referenceframe. Because, again, we all had different speeds in our lives and the gravity is not the same on Earth everywhere. So there are (small) differences in reference frames (clocks). When we come closer to the sun, the gravity increases and when there is more distance between the sun and Earth, the gravity of the sun has less influence on our clocks. So, in reality, we almost never agree about the rate of time passage. Some of us where in space (astronauts) and experienced a timecontraction. For pragmatic reasons we ignore all these small differences and act as if we have all the same idea about the age of the universe since the BB. That we agree about the referenceframe or the clock. That's not true in a relativistic universe like ours.

It's not because you will use non-relativistic equations for pragmatic and practical reasons, that reality in itself is suddenly also non-relativistic. For pragmatic reasons to build a house, an architect will use a flat Earth as an assumption for his drawings. Does that makes the Earth flat? Nope. Don't confuse pragmatic models of the world with reality in itself.

Thank you very much.

In my opinion, non-relativistic equations are not good to describe a relativistic reality.

I have a few question about the speed of light or about near light speed. Scientists discovered that light in vacuüm has the same speed relative to everything.(299 792 458 m / s) If But is there an (massless) object possible with the same speed relative to object x, but not relative to everything? In other words: is lightspeed possible not relative to everything but only relative to a certain object. So, speeds close to the speed of light relative to object x, but not so close to the speed of light relative to object y, when these objects reach the speed of light (when these bodies are massless), are they suddenly going at lightspeed relative to every object? The speed of light decreases when it travels through a medium. When this lightspeed slows down, is this speed still the same speed relative to everything? Thank you if you like to answer these questions.

So, you ignore a crucial part of reality to keep your theory? Hmmm, not a good scientific method in my opinion.

What I mean with 'no fixed age of the universe' is, that different observers will disagree about the age of the universe. Their mass, their moveoment, the field of gravity where they are living etc will have an effect on the time rate passage on their clock, so they can not be certain about the age of the universe. That's how I understand the relativitiy of time.

There is a very small difference, but that makes a very big difference for what kind of universe we live in: when I walk and you don't walk, we have different ideas about the time rate passage since the socalled big bang. When I'm fat and you are not (mass), we think differently about how much time is passed since the big bang. That's reality. Even when the numbers are very small, this small difference means a very big difference for the kind of universe we are living in. : no certain age of the universe possible. We live in a universe where there is no universal clock. (Einstein). So no age of the universe possible. That's not ridiculous. That's how the universe is. About Dunning and Kruger: why are you using this label for someone you think he doesn't know something you know. Why don't you explain with arguments why you think he is wrong? Don't label someone as being ignorant or someone with Dunning Kruger syndrom. Rather give some arguments why he is wrong in your opinion so he can learn something and is able to change his mind. Thanks. By the way: every scientist of the past who thought was right, but been proven wrong these days, could be seen today as someone with the Dunning Kruger syndrom. As a blabbering pseudoscientist. There were many scientists with the Dunning Kruger syndrom, because later on their theory was been proven wrong or a better theory was been found. And maybe you will be seen as someone with the Dunning Kruger syndrom in the future when the big bang theory will be falsified by new evidence and a better theory will explain the phenomena better. About the big bang theory: When a scientist tells you this: 'time and space began to 13.7 billion years ago with a big bang', do you really think that he and you understand what is been said? You could ask this scientist: "what do you mean with 'the beginning of time'. The fact is:: this scientist has no clue at all what the concept 'time begins' mean.. He is combining some terms and he thinks he and you understand what it means, but, in reality, he has no clue what it means when he says: 'time begins and spacetime expands in nothing, not even space.'. He has no clue when he tells you that there was a tiny point of matter and energy combined expanding in ... nothingness, not even blackness or space. Do you really think he can grasp this concept? His math shows him this idea, and he is quoting his mathematics. But this scientist is saying sometehing he doesn't understand at all, what this concept means in reality.. The Big Bang theory is a theory about the expansion of everything in nothingness, not even space, expanding in nothing. Do you really think that a scientist can grasp this notion? I don't think so. .7

space expansion is that the distance between two object increases while the objects don't move. Simple as that. It's very simple actually. As simple as 1 + 1 equals 2. Time is relative. Different observers disagree about the time rate passage (since the big bang. Ergo, there can not be a certain age of the universe. Other observers will disagree. Simple as that. Whole bb theory falsified. By a simple but rock solid reasoning.

That's true. But the main point is that there is a difference. It doesn't matter how small it is. It is never negligible. The fact that there is a difference makes a crucial difference in the true nature of the universe. This fact (that observers have different clocks) falsifies the whole idea of an age of the universe since the socalled big bang. Because you can not have a universal clock (a certain age of the universe). Time is relative. (Whatever small the difference may be). There is no prefered referenceframe possible. Observers who moved through space or where once near a black hole have a different idea about the time rate passage since the socalled big bang and the 'age of the universe' then other observers who didn't travel near a black hole. Time (age of the universe) is still relative, it doesn't matter how small the difference is. it is not negligible when it comes to theoritisising in what kind of universe we live.

What I mean with expanding space: The Doppler-shift-measured velocity of various galaxies receding from the Earth approximately proportional to their distance from the Earth. I don't believe in the big bang theory. I do believe that the observed expansion has nothing to do with a socalled expansion of the universe since the big bang, beginning with a singularity. Because that's what expansion of the universe means. What I'm saying is: the observed expansion of space (Hubbles Law) is a relativistic observation of space. No, what I'm saying is: there is no universal clock. No time of the universe in itself. Observers will disagree on the timescale of the universe. Show me the logically fallacy and tell me why it's a logical fallacy. The age is still relative. A relative expression of what a clock says gives us no information about the universe in itself. Another clock can say something totally different.

there is only one reasonable way how to calculate the age of the universe: with a clock. And we know that time is relative. So, no definable age of the universe since the socalled big bang possible. No, it's not because it's mathematical, that it's not real. It's even more real then our relativistic observations of space. and time. According to who's clock? What's the universal reference frame? There is no universal referenceframe (theories of relativity). So no defined timescale possible of the universe as a whole. Ok. No, what I mean is: only a clock can measure time. And time is relative, so no defined age of the universe in itself. Please give an exaple of the incoherence. Yes. The universe in itself is only mathematical in my idea, and a mathematical model cannot expand. it has no spatial and temporal properties. The difference will be that the mind will be included. That's a hugh difference. The only reasonable way to measure time is with a (atomic) clock. And the clocks will not give us a defined age, because time is relative.