An observer's local clock and ruler determine the observation of curved and expanded spaces somewhere else

[Maartenn100]

17 hours ago, swansont said:

The great thing about science is that we can quantify this. And yes, the difference is negligible. Even being on different planets in our solar system, or being in deep space, is not going to appreciably change the answer. If our answer is 14.7 billion years, they will not disagree with that. 

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.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Maartenn100

[swansont]

49 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

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.

If the difference is smaller than what the precision of the measurement allows, it doesn't matter.

If the age of the universe is 14.7 billion years, then a time difference of 10 years, or 100 years, or 1000 years for two observers has no impact, and does absolutely nothing to the concept of the big bang, or the universe having a quantifiable age. 

Quote

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.

Bollocks.

There are other things that rely on timing and are affected by relativity, and yet we can theorize how to make these systems work and apply relativity accordingly. GPS, as an example. The satellites have both kinematic and gravitational corrections to the time, and yet we are able to navigate using them. We can compare our clocks on the earth, despite the fact that we are rotating and that puts us in an accelerated frame of reference. We can make these clock comparisons consistent enough to have a usable time standard for the whole earth.

Is there a realistic scenario where relativity a valid excuse for you being 15 minutes late to work? Because that's what this boils down to. Your claim that we can't apply theory because there are small corrections that must be made, even when those corrections are too small to be measured, is ignorant and false. Any conclusion drawn from such a position is not valid.

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

Bollocks.

I think that about sums it up.

[Maartenn100]

21 hours ago, Strange said:

You haven't answered the question:

What, exactly, do you mean by "space expansion"? And what exactly do you mean by "expansion of the universe"? And how are these different?

I guess you can't answer because ... what? You don't know what you are talking about? 

 

Yep. This is standard physics. You seem to be endlessly parroting standard concepts (as if you thought of them) and then denying the conclusions.

space expansion is that the distance between two object increases while the objects don't move. Simple as that.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

If the difference is smaller than what the precision of the measurement allows, it doesn't matter.

If the age of the universe is 14.7 billion years, then a time difference of 10 years, or 100 years, or 1000 years for two observers has no impact, and does absolutely nothing to the concept of the big bang, or the universe having a quantifiable age. 

Bollocks.

There are other things that rely on timing and are affected by relativity, and yet we can theorize how to make these systems work and apply relativity accordingly. GPS, as an example. The satellites have both kinematic and gravitational corrections to the time, and yet we are able to navigate using them. We can compare our clocks on the earth, despite the fact that we are rotating and that puts us in an accelerated frame of reference. We can make these clock comparisons consistent enough to have a usable time standard for the whole earth.

Is there a realistic scenario where relativity a valid excuse for you being 15 minutes late to work? Because that's what this boils down to. Your claim that we can't apply theory because there are small corrections that must be made, even when those corrections are too small to be measured, is ignorant and false. Any conclusion drawn from such a position is not valid.

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. 

[Endy0816]

What does the relative passage of time have to do with the Universe transitioning to a cooler lower density state?

[Strange]

17 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

space expansion is that the distance between two object increases while the objects don't move. Simple as that.

You have still only answered half the question.

How does this differ from "expansion of the universe"? (Clue: it doesn't. That is what "expansion of the universe" means.)

18 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

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.

You cannot use an argument from a theory to show that the same theory is wrong. Unless you can show that the theory is mathematically inconsistent (it isn't).

Time may be "relative" (observer dependent) but that doesn't mean it is random or arbitrary. Different observers can calculate exactly how much their measurements will differ from one another and agree on an age for the universe. The fact that in their frame of reference the measurement might be different (by an immeasurably small amount) doesn't mean their is no age; it just means the measurements are different.

To go back to GPS: each satellite will measure time differently (and differently from each GPS user on the ground). That doesn't mean it is impossible to measure time. Quite the opposite, in fact: many people use GPS as a time standard. Because we know how to adjust for all the clocks having different ("relative") times.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

It doesn't matter how small it is. It is never negligible.

Don't be ridiculous.

If you are building a house, do you have to measure the construction to the nearest femtometer? Of course not. Because differences that small are ... negligible.

[dimreepr]

34 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Whole bb theory falsified. By a simple but rock solid reasoning.

This may be a difficult concept but, not every thought you have is gold, that's why we have ears (or in this context ' a screen'). 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

This may be a difficult concept but, not every thought you have is gold, that's why we have ears (or in this context ' a screen'). 

What is just stunningly bizarre about this is that Maartenn has already shown that he barely understands either GR or the Big Bang model that he is pretending to have disproved.

I think even Dunning and Kruger would find this behaviour implausible.

[dimreepr]

28 minutes ago, Strange said:

What is just stunningly bizarre about this is that Maartenn has already shown that he barely understands either GR or the Big Bang model that he is pretending to have disproved.

I think even Dunning and Kruger would find this behaviour implausible.

I think it's easier because he can't actually see  or hear (just how hard the eyes roll).

[Maartenn100]

9 hours ago, Strange said:

You have still only answered half the question.

How does this differ from "expansion of the universe"? (Clue: it doesn't. That is what "expansion of the universe" means.)

You cannot use an argument from a theory to show that the same theory is wrong. Unless you can show that the theory is mathematically inconsistent (it isn't).

Time may be "relative" (observer dependent) but that doesn't mean it is random or arbitrary. Different observers can calculate exactly how much their measurements will differ from one another and agree on an age for the universe. The fact that in their frame of reference the measurement might be different (by an immeasurably small amount) doesn't mean their is no age; it just means the measurements are different.

To go back to GPS: each satellite will measure time differently (and differently from each GPS user on the ground). That doesn't mean it is impossible to measure time. Quite the opposite, in fact: many people use GPS as a time standard. Because we know how to adjust for all the clocks having different ("relative") times.

 

 

 

Don't be ridiculous.

If you are building a house, do you have to measure the construction to the nearest femtometer? Of course not. Because differences that small are ... negligible.

 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

Edited April 27, 2018 by Maartenn100

[Lasse]

30 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

: no fixed age of the universe possible

If time would not be fixed we would experience absolute infinity (singularity) anywhere. Moments lastning forever. I do not experience that... 

If I can have a birth why the universe could not had one? I see the signs of evolution in it...

Does the fact that we want to handle the universe as infinite, change the universe's basic function to be finite (i.e it exist since a measurable time with a measurable size with measurable amount of energy and matter).

Edited April 27, 2018 by Lasse

[Maartenn100]

 

3 minutes ago, Lasse said:

If time would not be fixed we would experience absolute infinity (singularity) anywhere. Moments lastning forever. I do not experience that... 

If I can have a birth why the universe could not had one? I see the signs of evolution in it...

Does the fact that we want to handle the universe as infinite change the universe's basic function to be finite (i.e it exist since a measurable time with a measurable size with measurable amount of energy and matter).

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. 

Edited April 27, 2018 by Maartenn100

[Lasse]

Just now, Maartenn100 said:

What I mean with 'no fixed age of the universe' is, that different observers will disagree about the age of the universe. There mass, there motions 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. 

That is true. But the relative circumstances of existens and by that perception, does not change the actual time, since when the Universe is present.

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

 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. 

There's a gap between your argument and conclusion that you could drive a galaxy through.

That two observers will disagree on a time has no inconsistency with the big bang theory. We can't determine the age to a precision where these relativistic differences matter (by many orders of magnitude), so they are ignored.

[Maartenn100]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

There's a gap between your argument and conclusion that you could drive a galaxy through.

That two observers will disagree on a time has no inconsistency with the big bang theory. We can't determine the age to a precision where these relativistic differences matter (by many orders of magnitude), so they are ignored.

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

Edited April 28, 2018 by Maartenn100

[swansont]

1 minute ago, Maartenn100 said:

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

It's not crucial. It's too small to measure.

We use non-relativistic equations, with great success, when speeds are small, and this is fine, for the same reasons. The differences are way to small to matter. Physicists do this all the time. Your grasp of the scientific method seems to be tenuous.

[Maartenn100]

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

It's not crucial. It's too small to measure.

We use non-relativistic equations, with great success, when speeds are small, and this is fine, for the same reasons. The differences are way to small to matter. Physicists do this all the time. Your grasp of the scientific method seems to be tenuous.

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

Edited April 28, 2018 by Maartenn100

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Maartenn100 said:

 

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. 

Like near all that come to science forums, open to any Tom, Dick and Harry, to yet again claim some renowned incumbent theory is wrong, you do so on baseless and in your case misunderstood scenarios. Time certainly is relative, as is space. Neither fact detracts from the BB model of universal/spacetime  evolution. Whether you are sitting where you are behind a computer screen on Earth, whether you are in a gigantic gravity well of a BH, each FoR and each calculation/s is as valid as any other. That's GR, and like the BB it still stands as the overwhelmingly supported model of the universe/spacetime we live in.

The other point where you seem to err drastically is in claiming that one is ignoring some crucial part of reality due to some difference in precision. We still use Newtonian mechaics in near every operational aspect on Earth and near all space endeavours also. We simply do not need the precision as detailed in GR. 

 

15 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

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

Why? It seems from where I sit that you are shown to be wrong everyday.

 

You are measuring a window frame in a house...Do you use a pair of Vernier calipers?

[Strange]

8 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

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.

This makes no sense.

We constantly have different views of time because of relative velocity and different gravitational potential.

Does this prevent us saying when the year started? Or when the century started? Or when The War of the Roses happened? Or when the calendar started? Or when dinosaurs ruled the Earth? Or when the Earth formed? Or when our galaxy formed? Or when the CMB was emitted? Or when the Big Bang happened?

Please show, in mathematical detail, which of these timescales are impossible to measure and why.

8 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

Why don't you explain with arguments why you  think he is wrong? 

It has been explained multiple times. You either refuse or are incapable of understanding. I have no way of knowing which. Although the things you have said in the thread indicate that you know almost nothing about the theory you are criticising.

8 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

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.

Nope. Because they understood the theories they were criticising, they were bale to provide theoretical and mathematical justification for their ideas. And the ideas could be confirmed by evidence. 

None of these apply to you: You don't know what you are talking about; your only justifications are baseless assertions; and the evidence proves you wrong.

(Note: you have been told about your errors multiple times so now you are deliberately lying by repeating them.)

8 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

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?

Yes. (And certainly they know more then you do.)

8 hours ago, Maartenn100 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..

They mean there is a singularity. This is described (for the benefit of the general public) as "the beginning of time and space".

8 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

The Big Bang theory is a theory about the expansion of everything in nothingness, not even space, expanding in nothing.

No it isn't. Again, all you are doing is demonstrating your profound ignorance.

7 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

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. 

If you understood it, you could quantify this alleged difference and who us how important it is.

You can't do that.

6 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

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

Really? Do you always use relativity to calculate times and distances when planning a car journey?

[Maartenn100]

Quote

Really? Do you always use relativity to calculate times and distances when planning a car journey?

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. 

 

 

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

It's not because you will use non-relativistic equations for pragmatic and practical reasons, that reality in itself is suddenly also non-relativistic.

Exactly. Just because there is some immeasurably small difference between different observer's age of the universe doesn't invalidate the measurement.

4 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Don't confuse pragmatic models of the world with reality in itself. 

You are the one who is doing this. You are saying that ignoring a difference that is immeasurably small invalidates the measurement.

[Maartenn100]

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.

Edited April 28, 2018 by Maartenn100

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

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). So, in reality, we almost never agree. For pragmatic reasons we ignore the small differences and act as if we have all the same idea about the age of the universe since the BB.

Exactly. And we could, if we wanted to, calculate what the difference in the age would be.

7 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

That's not true in a relativistic universe like ours.

Prove it.

Why don't you do the necessary calculations and show what a massive error we are all making? Go on: I dare you to prove us wrong using actual mathematics, rather than baseless assertions and logical fallacies.

Edited April 28, 2018 by Strange

[Maartenn100]

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).  

Edited April 28, 2018 by Maartenn100

[Strange]

18 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

It's negligible for practical reasons and reasons of calculation. But it's not negligible for the philosophical implications (about the nature of reality) for in what kind of universe we live.

That makes no sense. The second statement does not logically follow from the first. The first one is correct. The second is false.

18 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

We live in a universe where there can not be a preferenced referenceframe for time (for the age of the universe). 

And there is no preferred frame of reference. Did anyone say there was? There is a convention used for measuring the age of the universe. (You are, of course, ignorant of this fact.)

But lets take an example. Lets say we have an astronomer who is orbit close to a black hole and whose time dilation, relative to us is a factor of 2. She will see changes in the universe happening twice as fast as we do. She will see the CMB blue-shifted so it is warmer and not as old as we see it. Taking all this information, she might calculate that the universe is about 7 billion years old. We could use either as the age of the universe. Not surprisingly, we use the one that corresponds to our frame of reference. Why is that a bad thing? We do it for all measurements of time.

Do you think this invalidates the Big Bang model and our calculation of the age of the universe? 

Of course not. Because when we communicate with this astronomer and share our measurements, we can take relativity into account and work out that our different results are consistent.

So the different measured ages do not disprove the Big Bang. It is no different than one person measuring the age using Earth years and another person using Jupiter years. 

 

Do you realise that the Big Bang is a prediction of General Relativity? Do you think you can use one result form GR to disprove another result from GR? Do you realise how illogical this is? (Presumably not. Because like Creationists and other religious fundamentalists, your are blinded to reason by your faith. Should we ask the mods to move this to religion? That seems to be where it belongs.)

It is like trying to use arithmetic to prove arithmetic is wrong. You are saying "2+2=4 therefore 2+3 <> 5". INSANE.

Edited April 28, 2018 by Strange