Dubbelosix Posted October 10, 2017 Posted October 10, 2017 You mistake what I mean, I normally do not, means in most cases I won't. Your's my friend, is not that exception. But hey, no one knows. -1
Strange Posted October 10, 2017 Posted October 10, 2017 17 minutes ago, Butch said: The relative universe is the best evidence for the absolute universe, I don't see how something you have made up (but can't define) can be considered evidence for something else you have made up (and can't define). That is like me saying the existence of floobles is evidence that unicorns exist.
studiot Posted October 11, 2017 Posted October 11, 2017 Butch, you don't seem to have read my comment dated sept 28, at any rate you haven't responded to it. I gave you an example of something that is absolute in the universe along with examples of other terminology with similar (but not exactly the same) meaning. We have this different terms and meanings for very good reasons.
swansont Posted October 11, 2017 Posted October 11, 2017 10 hours ago, Butch said: 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. But you have provided no information about this framework, or how this idea can be tested.
Butch Posted October 21, 2017 Author Posted October 21, 2017 On 10/11/2017 at 5:42 AM, swansont said: But you have provided no information about this framework, or how this idea can be tested. I am trying to introduce the concept at a pace that allows me to see responses and and answer without skipping points. On 10/10/2017 at 7:01 PM, Dubbelosix said: You mistake what I mean, I normally do not, means in most cases I won't. Your's my friend, is not that exception. But hey, no one knows Actually my hypothesis is disprovable, just not easily disprovable. It can also be tested... We will get to that. On 10/11/2017 at 4:56 AM, studiot said: Butch, you don't seem to have read my comment dated sept 28, at any rate you haven't responded to it. I gave you an example of something that is absolute in the universe along with examples of other terminology with similar (but not exactly the same) meaning. We have this different terms and meanings for very good reasons. By "absolute" my meaning is simple, the realm of this universe is absolute, if a quantity in this realm does not approach infinity it approaches zero. Try plotting the path of y=1/x^2 with x having limits of infinity. You should get a right angle . This is because any quantity less than infinity approaches zero, ergo with limits of infinity... y=1/x^2 has the same meaning as "As x approaches zero y approaches infinity.".
studiot Posted October 21, 2017 Posted October 21, 2017 On 28/09/2017 at 9:21 PM, Butch said: The speed of light is absolute Quote The absolute universe does exist, and my goal here is to convey an understanding of the evidence for it, without that understanding, it does not exist for the individual observer. Well you have successfully contradicted yourself. No wonder everyone is confused. I was only trying to help you employ the correct terminology that everyone else uses so they they will understand you.
swansont Posted October 21, 2017 Posted October 21, 2017 52 minutes ago, Butch said: I am trying to introduce the concept at a pace that allows me to see responses and and answer without skipping points. Actually my hypothesis is disprovable, just not easily disprovable. It can also be tested... We will get to that. We're on page 10. 54 minutes ago, Butch said: By "absolute" my meaning is simple, the realm of this universe is absolute, if a quantity in this realm does not approach infinity it approaches zero. Try plotting the path of y=1/x^2 with x having limits of infinity. You should get a right angle . This is because any quantity less than infinity approaches zero, ergo with limits of infinity... y=1/x^2 has the same meaning as "As x approaches zero y approaches infinity.". What does the value of the number 7 approach as x goes to infinity?
Strange Posted October 21, 2017 Posted October 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Butch said: By "absolute" my meaning is simple, the realm of this universe is absolute, if a quantity in this realm does not approach infinity it approaches zero. Try plotting the path of y=1/x^2 with x having limits of infinity. You should get a right angle . This is because any quantity less than infinity approaches zero, ergo with limits of infinity... y=1/x^2 has the same meaning as "As x approaches zero y approaches infinity.". Apart from being trivially disproved, that is a bizarre definition of "absolute". You could have chosen a more appropriate word to describe this concept. Pineapple, for example.
Butch Posted October 21, 2017 Author Posted October 21, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, swansont said: We're on page 10. What does the value of the number 7 approach as x goes to infinity? 7/infinity. How close to zero is 7 compared to infinity? Edited October 21, 2017 by Butch Elaboration
swansont Posted October 21, 2017 Posted October 21, 2017 5 minutes ago, Butch said: 7/infinity. Really? I say it's 7. It's a constant. How else does math work, if constants don't stay constant?
Butch Posted October 21, 2017 Author Posted October 21, 2017 (edited) 27 minutes ago, swansont said: Really? I say it's 7. It's a constant. How else does math work, if constants don't stay constant? The only math in the absolute universe is zero and infinity, the math we are familiar with applies to the relative universe. Perhaps you begin to understand my use of the term "absolute"? Try plotting the path with limits of x= 13.7 billion years to x=150 msec. Now math works and the path becomes a hyperbolic curve. I believe it is best for you to discern the following on your own, then I can be sure we have the same understanding... If x is time and y is space, what then does this curve represent? I will get back as soon as I can, thanks for following. Edited October 21, 2017 by Butch Elaboration
swansont Posted October 21, 2017 Posted October 21, 2017 2 hours ago, Butch said: The only math in the absolute universe is zero and infinity, the math we are familiar with applies to the relative universe. Perhaps you begin to understand my use of the term "absolute"? Your optimism is without basis. 1
Strange Posted October 21, 2017 Posted October 21, 2017 2 hours ago, Butch said: The only math in the absolute universe is zero and infinity So it is a binary universe? You do realise that no matter could exist in such a universe?
Butch Posted October 25, 2017 Author Posted October 25, 2017 (edited) On 10/21/2017 at 7:07 PM, Strange said: So it is a binary universe? You do realise that no matter could exist in such a universe? Yes, it is only the framework that the relative universe is built upon, a plan for the relative universe. Without Space/Time nothing "exists" in the absolute universe space and time do not co-exist. It is not binary, binary is a relationship. What creates the relative universe from the plan? On 10/21/2017 at 7:03 PM, swansont said: Your optimism is without basis. I don't think I am being to optimistic, I am sure you have a pretty good head on your shoulders. Try this one on, without relativity, the absolute is meaningless. Edited October 25, 2017 by Butch
Strange Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 24 minutes ago, Butch said: It is not binary, binary is a relationship. You said there were only two possible values, 0 and infinity. That is binary. (Binary is not a "relationship".) 25 minutes ago, Butch said: Try this one on, without relativity, the absolute is meaningless. Nonsense. Before relativity, most aspects of the universe were thought to be absolute. You have some vague metaphysical waffle but no testable model; in other words, no science. I suggest the mods close this threads for not meeting the forum's requirements for speculation.
Butch Posted October 25, 2017 Author Posted October 25, 2017 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Strange said: You said there were only two possible values, 0 and infinity. That is binary. (Binary is not a "relationship".) Nonsense. Before relativity, most aspects of the universe were thought to be absolute. You have some vague metaphysical waffle but no testable model; in other words, no science. I suggest the mods close this threads for not meeting the forum's requirements for speculation. How does zero relate to infinity? I can think of at least one test and I feel there must be many more, however before I can elaborate you will need a greater understanding of this concept. Please plot the path (with limits of your choosing) Space(y) = 1/Time(x)^2 Please note that all we witness is in the past, so values for Time should be negative. Describe the path and hypothesize on what it represents and we can move on to how it can be tested. Edited October 25, 2017 by Butch
Strange Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 52 minutes ago, Butch said: I can think of at least one test and I feel there must be many more, however before I can elaborate you will need a greater understanding of this concept. Why not explain your test? That might help just understand this concept. You do realise that concept has to be quantitative, I hope. Therefore you will need some maths to define the test. 53 minutes ago, Butch said: Please plot the path (with limits of your choosing) Space(y) = 1/Time(x)^2 That equation is meaningless. Are Space() and Time() functions? If so, how are they defined? Quote Please note that all we witness is in the past, so values for Time should be negative. As you have a power of two in there, it shouldn't make any difference. Quote Describe the path and hypothesize on what it represents and we can move on to how it can be tested. That is your job.
studiot Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 I was wondering If you catch a drunk Tunafish, can you get drunk by eating it?
Butch Posted October 25, 2017 Author Posted October 25, 2017 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Strange said: Why not explain your test? That might help just understand this concept. You do realise that concept has to be quantitative, I hope. Therefore you will need some maths to define the test. That equation is meaningless. Are Space() and Time() functions? If so, how are they defined? As you have a power of two in there, it shouldn't make any difference. That is your job. OK, I will give it a shot, the path is a hyperbolic curve, it represents acceleration, being that it is a function of space v time, it represents an accelerating expansion of space over time. We are a part of this expansion, it is not evidenced in the relative universe. The universe you witnessed 1 Ms ago has approached zero... It no longer exists. The universe you will witness 1 Ms from now is approaching infinity. The test: Take the case of the photon, the energy of a photon is defined in the relative universe as a function of its wavelength, if the absolute universe is constantly expanding into existence, the photon would be accelerating with the expansion... For the photon to maintain the same relative energy in the relative universe, it would have to be redshifted. The redshift of a photon then would be a function of its age. To test this we would need to observe an illuminated body at a known static distance and determine if there is a red shift. I have to leave you for now and will return with the math to more succinctly describe this, the math gets a little strange because we are transcribing the absolute to the relative but I think I have my mind around this enough to accomplish it. Thanks again to all of you. 21 minutes ago, studiot said: I was wondering If you catch a drunk Tunafish, can you get drunk by eating it? Probably, we would need to test that hypothesis. Edited October 25, 2017 by Butch
swansont Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 2 hours ago, Butch said: I don't think I am being to optimistic, I am sure you have a pretty good head on your shoulders. Try this one on, without relativity, the absolute is meaningless. I wasn't underselling my ability to understand.
Strange Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 1 hour ago, Butch said: The redshift of a photon then would be a function of its age. It isn't. 1 hour ago, studiot said: If you catch a drunk Tunafish, can you get drunk by eating it? Apparently not: https://what-if.xkcd.com/98/
Butch Posted October 26, 2017 Author Posted October 26, 2017 (edited) 17 hours ago, Strange said: It isn't. Apparently not: https://what-if.xkcd.com/98/ It isn't by current understanding, however if my hypothesis is correct it would be a function of the age of the photon, before you go there, this test will need to be accomplished without Hubble. 17 hours ago, Strange said: It isn't. Apparently not: https://what-if.xkcd.com/98/ To understand the math for this hypothesis, we need to get our head around a couple of concepts: 1) In the absolute model of the universe at T-n Space approaches zero, the velocity of photon would approach zero and its wavelength would approach zero. As T approaches 0 Space approaches infinity, the velocity of a hot on approaches infinity and its wavelength approaches infinity. 2) It is neural delay that produces the illusion of time and space co-existing and hence the "illusion" of reality. This is represented by the curve I discussed previously. The task then is to produce the math that marries the two models, absolute and relative... In the case of the photon, we need the math to map the redshift at points between T approaches zero and T approaches infinity. Do you follow me so far? I do apologise if it seems I am taking this to a 3rd grade level, I mean no disrespect. It is a very mind bending concept. Edited October 26, 2017 by Butch
Strange Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Butch said: It isn't by current understanding, however if my hypothesis is correct it would be a function of the age of the photon, before you go there, this test will need to be accomplished without Hubble. It isn't by current evidence. I'm not sure what you mean by "withoutHubble" but once you factor out the expansion of the universe, there is no change in frequency with age. So your hypothesis is falsified. Quote To understand the math for this hypothesis, we need to get our head around a couple of concepts:1) In the absolute model of the universe at T-n Space approaches zero, the velocity of photon would approach zero and its wavelength would approach zero. As T approaches 0 Space approaches infinity, the velocity of a hot on approaches infinity and its wavelength approaches infinity. This doesn't make much sense. What is T-n? What does "space approaches zero" or "space approaches infinity" mean? It sounds like "banana approaches 5", in other words meaningless. Edited October 26, 2017 by Strange
Butch Posted October 26, 2017 Author Posted October 26, 2017 12 minutes ago, Strange said: It isn't by current evidence. I'm not sure what you mean by "withoutHubble" but once you factor out the expansion of the universe, there is no change in frequency with age. So your hypothesis is falsified. This doesn't make much sense. What is T-n? What does "space approaches zero" or "space approaches infinity" mean? It sounds like "banana approaches 5", in other words meaningless. Hubble is based upon the red shift caused by bodies that are receding, since we are seeking to measure redshift caused by the age of a photon this would modify Hubble, hence it cannot be used to determine the distance to a body being used for the test of the hypothesis. If you truly do not understand those terms at this point, you never will, however I believe you are able to.
Strange Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 1 hour ago, Butch said: It isn't by current understanding, however if my hypothesis is correct it would be a function of the age of the photon You will need to quantify this. What is the function that relates age to red-shift? Without that, your suggestion is untestable. Sorry, but you need to do some math. 59 minutes ago, Butch said: Hubble is based upon the red shift caused by bodies that are receding, since we are seeking to measure redshift caused by the age of a photon this would modify Hubble, hence it cannot be used to determine the distance to a body being used for the test of the hypothesis. Nonsense. There are multiple independent ways of measuring the distance of objects and the associated red-shift. There are also other ways of measuring the Hubble constant, that have nothing to do with red-shift. The recent gravitational wave detection also confirms the value of the Hubble constant. Therefore, we can account for the Hubble factor and measure any redshift that is purely due to the age of the photons. There isn't any. Your proposal would also violate conservation of energy.
.thumb.jpg.cc169fb67f9c969aeace623286b9b5e6.jpg)
Recommended Posts