Einstein was right!

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Butch said:

Not really, a rainbow is a perfect example, each observer witnesses a different rainbow. We each witness a different universe and every instant of time provides a new universe to each observer.

So it is different for each observer. So I'm not sure why you say "not really". 

3 minutes ago, Butch said:

The current universe for each observer exists for only an instant at T0, the present.

And this stunning insight into the meaning of "now" is useful, how?

[beecee]

On 11/15/2016 at 3:56 AM, Butch said:

We do not see the earth getting larger relative to anything because everything is expanding at an accelerating rate. We perceive it however as gravity.

In actual fact, we do not see the Earth getting larger, you or I expanding, or the Milky Way expanding, or M31 receding from us because gravity, the EMF and strong and weak nuclear forces, have overcome the expansion of spacetime that we observe over much larger scales. 

Edited September 28, 2017 by beecee

[Butch]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

So it is different for each observer. So I'm not sure why you say "not really". 

And this stunning insight into the meaning of "now" is useful, how?

We can agree then that the universe exists only in this instant of time and that the universe that was 1 nanosecond ago no longer exists (although evidence that it did exist persists)?

As to "Not really" I am referring to the different universe be presented to the observer with the passage of time.

27 minutes ago, beecee said:

In actual fact, we do not see the Earth getting larger, you or I expanding, or the Milky Way expanding, or M31 receding from us because gravity, the EMF and strong and weak nuclear forces, have overcome the expansion of spacetime that we observe over much larger scales. 

Welcome beecee.

Edited September 28, 2017 by Butch

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Butch said:

The speed of light is absolute, the rest mass of a particle is invarient, either will do to demonstrate the necessity of an underlying framework.

The number of electrons in a hydrogen atom is absolute.

The speed of light is invariant, but not absolute.

And yes the rest mass of a particle is also invariant.

 

While we are about this an FYI.

The speed of light is both constant and invariant.

The interval, s, (as identified by the equation ds2 = dx² +dy² + dz² -dc²t²) is invariant, but not constant or absolute in Relativity.

Edited September 28, 2017 by studiot

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

We can agree then that the universe exists only in this instant of time and that the universe that was 1 nanosecond ago no longer exists (although evidence that it did exist persists)?

No, we can't agree. How was it replaced with an entirely new universe?

[Strange]

8 hours ago, Butch said:

We can agree then that the universe exists only in this instant of time and that the universe that was 1 nanosecond ago no longer exists (although evidence that it did exist persists)?

This sounds more like philosophy than science. However, in GR the past, present and future are all equally real. So you need to provide some evidence for your claim if it is going to be treated scientifically.

Also, maybe you need to define what you mean by "exist".

[Dubbelosix]

Of course, this is related to the relativity of simultaneity. That comoving observers will not generally agree when things happen. It makes things like past, a relative thing. I found a paper relevant to the discussions

 

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-13538-5_10

 

 

Time is never an easy subject and is riddled with problems. 

You could argue very easily and with much success, that all there exists is a present time - past and futures have their own present as well. 

[Strange]

Excellent point. How can one say that only the present exists when every observer may have a different definition of "the present".

[Dubbelosix]

Certainly it means there is no absolute past, no absolute present either.

Even Julian Barbours concept of ''Now'' has to take into account that ''Now'' is not actually a universal, absolute measure of a present moment - in this work Julian says the cat that jumps off a table is not the same one that lands, and this rings similar to what the previous poster had envisioned, except Julians world exists because time does not exist. 

 

I just want to make clear, I once found Barbour's model interesting, but have since realised he has focused on the Wheeler de Witt equation, which is probably wrong any way.. at least, many physicists I have talked to, feel this way. Remember, the wheeler de witt equation is about a complete 3 geometry in absence of time.

''Barbour's Nows can be imagined as pages of a novel ripped from the book's spine and tossed randomly onto the floor. Each page is a separate entity existing without time, existing outside of time. Arranging the pages in some special order and moving through them in a step-by-step fashion makes a story unfold. Still, no matter how we arrange the sheets, each page is complete and independent. As Barbour says, "The cat that jumps is not the same cat that lands." The physics of reality for Barbour is the physics of these Nows taken together as a whole. There is no past moment that flows into a future moment. Instead all the different possible configurations of the universe, every possible location of every atom throughout all of creation, exist simultaneously. Barbour's Nows all exist at once in a vast Platonic realm that stands completely and absolutely without time."What really intrigues me," says Barbour, "is that the totality of all possible Nows has a very special structure. You can think of it as a landscape or country. Each point in this country is a Now and I call the country Platonia, because it is timeless and created by perfect mathematical rules." The question of "before" the Big Bang never arises for Barbour because his cosmology has no time. All that exists is a landscape of configurations, the landscape of Nows. "Platonia is the true arena of the universe," he says, "and its structure has a deep influence on whatever physics, classical or quantum, is played out in it." For Barbour, the Big Bang is not an explosion in the distant past. It's just a special place in Platonia, his terrain of independent Nows.''

 

https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-09/book-excerpt-there-no-such-thing-time

Edited September 29, 2017 by Dubbelosix

[scherado]

Quote

Barbour's Nows all exist at once in a vast Platonic realm that stands completely and absolutely without time."

I went to the link you provided and my first thought was that the guy has read my thoughts on the subject that were in the public domain for the last ... I don't know how many years. I'm going to have to search my files and get the exact date! LOL

Edited September 29, 2017 by scherado

[Butch]

On 9/29/2017 at 3:01 AM, Dubbelosix said:

Of course, this is related to the relativity of simultaneity. That comoving observers will not generally agree when things happen. It makes things like past, a relative thing. I found a paper relevant to the discussions

 

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-13538-5_10

 

 

Time is never an easy subject and is riddled with problems. 

You could argue very easily and with much success, that all there exists is a present time - past and futures have their own present as well. 

You are quite correct, reality is subjective. It is difficult to sidestep philosophy with the concept I am struggling to convey... However the philosophy that reality is a creation of the mind is rather solid ?

If accepting a philosophy as a basis for exploration that benefits science, I think we should be willing to make that journey.

Edited October 1, 2017 by Butch

[Dubbelosix]

Isn't what you are talking about called solipsism ?

 

I don't believe it is solid at all as an argument, or philosophy. Things where happening in the universe long before any intelligent recording devices, like ourselves where around. At least, this is my opinion on the matter. The mind is not all there is - we are inside the universe, we are not so special that the universe be literally in us. The reality you experience arises from a complex series of complicated electro-biochemical interactions, which are then interpreted by your brain. 

Edited October 1, 2017 by Dubbelosix

[Butch]

31 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

Isn't what you are talking about called solipsism ?

 

I don't believe it is solid at all as an argument, or philosophy. Things where happening in the universe long before any intelligent recording devices, like ourselves where around. At least, this is my opinion on the matter. The mind is not all there is - we are inside the universe, we are not so special that the universe be literally in us. The reality you experience arises from a complex series of complicated electro-biochemical interactions, which are then interpreted by your brain. 

Yes, there was much "happening" (a relative term) however it was "happening in the absolute universe, our minds create the relative universe from the absolute.

[Dubbelosix]

You'll need to define these things carefully, for instance, particles experience time contraction as well. Does that make particles relative? Of course, everything is relative in the universe.

[Strange]

7 hours ago, Butch said:

However the philosophy that reality is a creation of the mind is rather solid ?

In a philosophical sense, maybe: it is possible to argue for it. However, scientifically it is unfalsifiable so it can't play any role in a scientific theory.

7 hours ago, Butch said:

Yes, there was much "happening" (a relative term) however it was "happening in the absolute universe, our minds create the relative universe from the absolute

Deine "absolute universe" and "relative universe".

[Butch]

On 10/1/2017 at 3:57 AM, Strange said:

In a philosophical sense, maybe: it is possible to argue for it. However, scientifically it is unfalsifiable so it can't play any role in a scientific theory.

Deine "absolute universe" and "relative universe".

First since it is the framework for the relative universe, let us define the absolute universe... With Time as the x axis extending to infinity in both the + and - quadrants, Space as the y axis extending to infinity in the + quadrant. At T=0(The present), S=infinity.

On 9/30/2017 at 8:11 PM, Dubbelosix said:

Isn't what you are talking about called solipsism ?

 

I don't believe it is solid at all as an argument, or philosophy. Things where happening in the universe long before any intelligent recording devices, like ourselves where around. At least, this is my opinion on the matter. The mind is not all there is - we are inside the universe, we are not so special that the universe be literally in us. The reality you experience arises from a complex series of complicated electro-biochemical interactions, which are then interpreted by your brain. 

Yes, there was much "happening" (a relative term) however it was "happening in the absolute universe, our minds create the relative universe from the absolute.

On 9/29/2017 at 3:19 AM, Dubbelosix said:

Certainly it means there is no absolute past, no absolute present either.

Even Julian Barbours concept of ''Now'' has to take into account that ''Now'' is not actually a universal, absolute measure of a present moment - in this work Julian says the cat that jumps off a table is not the same one that lands, and this rings similar to what the previous poster had envisioned, except Julians world exists because time does not exist. 

 

I just want to make clear, I once found Barbour's model interesting, but have since realised he has focused on the Wheeler de Witt equation, which is probably wrong any way.. at least, many physicists I have talked to, feel this way. Remember, the wheeler de witt equation is about a complete 3 geometry in absence of time.

''Barbour's Nows can be imagined as pages of a novel ripped from the book's spine and tossed randomly onto the floor. Each page is a separate entity existing without time, existing outside of time. Arranging the pages in some special order and moving through them in a step-by-step fashion makes a story unfold. Still, no matter how we arrange the sheets, each page is complete and independent. As Barbour says, "The cat that jumps is not the same cat that lands." The physics of reality for Barbour is the physics of these Nows taken together as a whole. There is no past moment that flows into a future moment. Instead all the different possible configurations of the universe, every possible location of every atom throughout all of creation, exist simultaneously. Barbour's Nows all exist at once in a vast Platonic realm that stands completely and absolutely without time."What really intrigues me," says Barbour, "is that the totality of all possible Nows has a very special structure. You can think of it as a landscape or country. Each point in this country is a Now and I call the country Platonia, because it is timeless and created by perfect mathematical rules." The question of "before" the Big Bang never arises for Barbour because his cosmology has no time. All that exists is a landscape of configurations, the landscape of Nows. "Platonia is the true arena of the universe," he says, "and its structure has a deep influence on whatever physics, classical or quantum, is played out in it." For Barbour, the Big Bang is not an explosion in the distant past. It's just a special place in Platonia, his terrain of independent Nows.''

 

https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-09/book-excerpt-there-no-such-thing-time

This is close to what I am trying to convey, however it is not complete as it does not define the link between the absolute universe and the relative universe.

[Dubbelosix]

But our minds are not the only relative systems, everything is relative. If this is some kind of argument that you need consciousness to explain relativity, you actually don't. Particles act according to rules of time dilation and their interactions are completely perfect substitutes for ''conscious observation.''

[Butch]

1 minute ago, Dubbelosix said:

But our minds are not the only relative systems, everything is relative. If this is some kind of argument that you need consciousness to explain relativity, you actually don't. Particles act according to rules of time dilation and their interactions are completely perfect substitutes for ''conscious observation.''

And what framework produces the rules?

On 9/29/2017 at 3:10 AM, Strange said:

Excellent point. How can one say that only the present exists when every observer may have a different definition of "the present".

The past persists in our minds, when we all grasp the basic concept of this framework I can explain how the relative universe is built upon it.

On 9/30/2017 at 8:11 PM, Dubbelosix said:

Isn't what you are talking about called solipsism ?

 

I don't believe it is solid at all as an argument, or philosophy. Things where happening in the universe long before any intelligent recording devices, like ourselves where around. At least, this is my opinion on the matter. The mind is not all there is - we are inside the universe, we are not so special that the universe be literally in us. The reality you experience arises from a complex series of complicated electro-biochemical interactions, which are then interpreted by your brain. 

No, I am not referring to solipsism, the mind transcribes the relative universe from the absolute universe.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

And what framework produces the rules?

Nature produces the rules. We just write them down.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

No, I am not referring to solipsism, the mind transcribes the relative universe from the absolute universe.

And the evidence for this is?

1 hour ago, Butch said:

First since it is the framework for the relative universe, let us define the absolute universe... With Time as the x axis extending to infinity in both the + and - quadrants, Space as the y axis extending to infinity in the + quadrant. At T=0(The present), S=infinity.

And what makes that "absolute"? It is relative to "now". And "now" is different for different frames of reference.

So what is your definition of the "relative universe"?

[Dubbelosix]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

 

The past persists in our minds, when we all grasp the basic concept of this framework I can explain how the relative universe is built upon it.

 

Actually, Einstein himself had something different to say on the matter.

 

In relativity, he says the past and future are stubborn illusions. Yes, past memories exists in our minds, but we don't literally ''jump into the past'' when we think about a memory - you remember events always in the present moment. Except, not everyone can agree when events happen. That's the mind boggling nature of relativity, but makes perfect sense if you have took the time to study why these things happen. 

 

When Einstein said the past and future where stubborn illusions, he meant the distinction between them are illusions - simply because the relativity of simultaneity. 

[Butch]

On 10/2/2017 at 2:11 PM, Strange said:

And the evidence for this is?

And what makes that "absolute"? It is relative to "now". And "now" is different for different frames of reference.

So what is your definition of the "relative universe"?

Now is subjective, we cannot witness absolute T0.

Science is the art of defining the relative universe.

Understanding the absolute universe might help us to define the relative universe.

On 10/2/2017 at 2:22 PM, Dubbelosix said:

Actually, Einstein himself had something different to say on the matter.

 

In relativity, he says the past and future are stubborn illusions. Yes, past memories exists in our minds, but we don't literally ''jump into the past'' when we think about a memory - you remember events always in the present moment. Except, not everyone can agree when events happen. That's the mind boggling nature of relativity, but makes perfect sense if you have took the time to study why these things happen. 

 

When Einstein said the past and future where stubborn illusions, he meant the distinction between them are illusions - simply because the relativity of simultaneity. 

In fact reality can be said to be an illusion, a result of delays in our ability to experience... For example the time it takes a photon to travel from it's origin to our retina and the time it takes for that to be processed by our nervous system. All that we experience is at T-n. The delay produces from the absolute universe of @T0 S=infinity the relative universe where S= 1/T^2.

[Dubbelosix]

I'm not interested normally in unfalsiable ideas. 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Butch said:

 Understanding the absolute universe might help us to define the relative universe.

Please provide evidence that there is an absolute universe.

[Butch]

On 10/7/2017 at 5:16 PM, swansont said:

Please provide evidence that there is an absolute universe.

The relative universe is the best evidence for the absolute universe, their are many relationships that must rely on an underlying framework, the relative mass of elementary particles for example. I am sure all of you can think of many more yourselves. Is it enough to say " It is what it is."? The newest sciences are seeking to reach an understanding of this framework, it must be ultimately simple... I am making some assumptions, time and space are infinite for one.

On 10/7/2017 at 4:39 PM, Dubbelosix said:

I'm not interested normally in unfalsiable ideas. 

Well, thank you for making an exception. I understand completely were you are coming from.