dad Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 Or perhaps someone here thinks we do know C in deep space? If so, how? To know any speed we need to know time. What time is like. On earth and the area of the solar system we do know that. We have probes that have gone almost one light day from here. Beyond this we do not really know what time is like. So, if time were not the same as here in this 'fishbowl', how we we know? We see and experience all things here in our time (and space_. Bottom line is that it is only assumed and believed that time is the same out in the distant universe. One implication of this would be that nothing in the universe could be said to have taken millions or billions of our years to get here! -1
MigL Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 (edited) A common misconception among people who don't understand science. How do we know that there is air, if we don't see it ? How do we know that microbes and virus ( virii ? ) cause disease if we don't see them ? The various conservation laws ( mass-energy, linear and angular momentum, charge, etc. ) are a result of deeper symmetries. If time didn't 'behave' the same ( within certain parameters ) at great distances, mass-energy would not be conserved. And if moving through a distance caused a change in how things behave, we would not have momentum conservation. Edited February 18, 2020 by MigL
beecee Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 1 hour ago, dad said: Or perhaps someone here thinks we do know C in deep space? If so, how? To know any speed we need to know time. What time is like. On earth and the area of the solar system we do know that. We have probes that have gone almost one light day from here. Beyond this we do not really know what time is like. So, if time were not the same as here in this 'fishbowl', how we we know? We see and experience all things here in our time (and space_. Bottom line is that it is only assumed and believed that time is the same out in the distant universe. One implication of this would be that nothing in the universe could be said to have taken millions or billions of our years to get here! Just a correction....C is the symbol for Carbon. "c" is the symbol for the speed of light, or ceritis, the latin word for speed. On your assumption....I'm pretty sure that the speed of light has been tested in a vacuum, and I'm pretty sure the result was "c"...So why do you suggest that this would change in deep space?
dad Posted February 18, 2020 Author Posted February 18, 2020 (edited) 25 minutes ago, beecee said: Just a correction....C is the symbol for Carbon. "c" is the symbol for the speed of light, or ceritis, the latin word for speed. On your assumption....I'm pretty sure that the speed of light has been tested in a vacuum, and I'm pretty sure the result was "c"...So why do you suggest that this would change in deep space? Fair enough. The problem is that whatever time is involved in light travel here where we test has no bearing to deep space...unless time there is the same. It does not prove time is the same it is just a clock in the fishbowl here. The issue is not whether it should or should not be the same. The issue here is whether we know it is. 1 hour ago, MigL said: A common misconception among people who don't understand science. How do we know that there is air, if we don't see it ? How do we know that microbes and virus ( virii ? ) cause disease if we don't see them ? The various conservation laws ( mass-energy, linear and angular momentum, charge, etc. ) are a result of deeper symmetries. If time didn't 'behave' the same ( within certain parameters ) at great distances, mass-energy would not be conserved. And if moving through a distance caused a change in how things behave, we would not have momentum conservation. Great. So, you know there is momentum conservation is deep space because..? Edited February 18, 2020 by dad
beecee Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 2 minutes ago, dad said: Fair enough. The problem is that whatever time is involved in light travel here where we test has no bearing to deep space...unless time there is the same. It does not prove time is the same it is just a clock in the fishbowl here. I believe MigL has answered that. 1
dad Posted February 18, 2020 Author Posted February 18, 2020 11 minutes ago, beecee said: I believe MigL has answered that. No. He didn't. You see speed is basically something that happens in time. It tells us how much time is involved to move through space. If time were not the same out there, then we could not expect anything to take the same amount of time.
swansont Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 13 minutes ago, dad said: Fair enough. The problem is that whatever time is involved in light travel here where we test has no bearing to deep space...unless time there is the same. It does not prove time is the same it is just a clock in the fishbowl here. Why does it have no bearing? 13 minutes ago, dad said: The issue is not whether it should or should not be the same. The issue here is whether we know it is. Great. So, you know there is momentum conservation is deep space because..? Why would spatial translation symmetry not hold there?
Ghideon Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 5 minutes ago, dad said: The problem is that whatever time is involved in light travel here where we test has no bearing to deep space...unless time there is the same. It does not prove time is the same it is just a clock in the fishbowl here. The issue is not whether it should or should not be the same. The issue here is whether we know it is. These questions quickly then to get metaphysical. Of course there could be an unknown and undetectable deity adjusting the laws of physics so that we observe just seems to match the models we have. For instance General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. But I do not think such speculations does not have much scientific value. Since we can measure light and other electromagnetic radiation from all directions in space we know that the laws of physics seems to be consistent within the observable universe. It seems unlikely that the universe is tuned in such a way that we on earth are in a unique position where the all the rest of the universe just looks to be predictable using a single set of laws. At this time it is more probable that the laws are the same in deep space, in every direction, as here. AFAIK the measurements from LIGO will further strengthen this view; black hole mergers for instance, taking place millions of light years apart, also seems to follow one set of physical laws. Voyager is also pretty far from earth at this time and I have seen no news that new physical laws are needed to explain what's happening out there.
John Cuthber Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 In order for light to do something different in deep space it would have to "know" that it was there. How could that happen? Does it carry a map?
dad Posted February 18, 2020 Author Posted February 18, 2020 2 minutes ago, swansont said: Why does it have no bearing? Because the area where man has been or sent probes toit could only have bearing if time were uniform and the same in all points in the universe. That is not known to be true. No observer has ever left the fishbowl! (the area where man has been, or has sent probes to) Quote Why would spatial translation symmetry not hold there? Why would it, exactly?
swansont Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 1 minute ago, dad said: Because the area where man has been or sent probes toit could only have bearing if time were uniform and the same in all points in the universe. That is not known to be true. No observer has ever left the fishbowl! (the area where man has been, or has sent probes to) We send probes to places where we haven’t been before, and the laws of physics have held up just fine. 1 minute ago, dad said: Why would it, exactly? You made the claim. It’s up to you to back it up, not up to me to prove you wrong.
dad Posted February 18, 2020 Author Posted February 18, 2020 2 minutes ago, Ghideon said: Quote These questions quickly then to get metaphysical. Science gets into the metaphysical then, unless it knows! Quote Of course there could be an unknown and undetectable deity adjusting the laws of physics so that we observe just seems to match the models we have. For instance General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. But I do not think such speculations does not have much scientific value. You assume time is a physical value. No. That is a guess. Quote Since we can measure light and other electromagnetic radiation from all directions in space we know that the laws of physics seems to be consistent within the observable universe Irrelevant. All measures and observations are HERE IN the fishbowl in our time! That does not tell us what time is like anywhere else. If, for example, we observe that a decay seen in spectra takes 52 days of our time, that does not mean it involves that amount of time there. This is only assumed/believed. Quote . It seems unlikely that the universe is tuned in such a way that we on earth are in a unique position where the all the rest of the universe just looks to be predictable using a single set of laws. At this time it is more probable that the laws are the same in deep space, in every direction, as here. If we establish that it is not known what time is like out there, whatever you deem likely loses all value. Quote AFAIK the measurements from LIGO will further strengthen this view; black hole mergers for instance, taking place millions of light years apart, also seems to follow one set of physical laws. No it won't. How would this even address what time itself out there is like!? Quote Voyager is also pretty far from earth at this time and I have seen no news that new physical laws are needed to explain what's happening out there. Yes it is far, but still less than one little light DAY! That is the size of the fishbowl, and how far we can say we know about as fas as time.
Phi for All Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 2 minutes ago, dad said: Because the area where man has been or sent probes toit could only have bearing if time were uniform and the same in all points in the universe. That is not known to be true. We've never observed spacetime behaving differently. Until we do, the null hypothesis states that physics doesn't behave fundamentally differently in different parts of the universe
dad Posted February 18, 2020 Author Posted February 18, 2020 2 minutes ago, swansont said: Quote We send probes to places where we haven’t been before, and the laws of physics have held up just fine. Yes time is the same in the fishbowl. You have sent probes no further that that! Quote You made the claim. It’s up to you to back it up, not up to me to prove you wrong. To tell the truth, you mentioned the 'spatial translation' thing. I have only pointed out that we do not know what time is like in the rest of the universe. I never claimed it was any certain way.
MigL Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 8 minutes ago, dad said: Why would it, exactly? Noether's theorem ( look it up ) is a mathematical relationship. Would you question if 2+2=4 in deep space ????
dad Posted February 18, 2020 Author Posted February 18, 2020 1 minute ago, Phi for All said: We've never observed spacetime behaving differently. Until we do, the null hypothesis states that physics doesn't behave fundamentally differently in different parts of the universe You do realize you live here in the fishbowl? Why would time NOT behave the way it does here? -2
swansont Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 Quote Irrelevant. All measures and observations are HERE IN the fishbowl in our time! That does not tell us what time is like anywhere else. If, for example, we observe that a decay seen in spectra takes 52 days of our time, that does not mean it involves that amount of time there. This is only assumed/believed. Where do photons we detect from distant galaxies come from, and do they traverse deep space? Please learn how to use the quote function
dad Posted February 18, 2020 Author Posted February 18, 2020 (edited) 2 minutes ago, MigL said: Noether's theorem ( look it up ) is a mathematical relationship. Would you question if 2+2=4 in deep space ???? In wiki it mentions this regarding that theorem. "This theorem only applies to continuous and smooth symmetries over physical space." Need I point out that it does not even address time in deep space? Edited February 18, 2020 by dad
swansont Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 Quote To tell the truth, you mentioned the 'spatial translation' thing. I have only pointed out that we do not know what time is like in the rest of the universe. I never claimed it was any certain way. You questioned conservation of momentum, which is equivalent to that symmetry.
Phi for All Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 1 minute ago, dad said: You do realize you live here in the fishbowl? Why would time NOT behave the way it does here? Because we can observe farther than we can send probes, see outside the fishbowl. I don't think you understand how relativity works, and I don't think you understand the predictive power of scientific methodology.
dad Posted February 18, 2020 Author Posted February 18, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, swansont said: Where do photons we detect from distant galaxies come from, and do they traverse deep space? Please learn how to use the quote function You detect them from the fishbowl. Always. 3 minutes ago, swansont said: You questioned conservation of momentum, which is equivalent to that symmetry. So then, show us the experiment in deepest space that shows it is the same? 2 minutes ago, Phi for All said: Because we can observe farther than we can send probes, see outside the fishbowl. I don't think you understand how relativity works, and I don't think you understand the predictive power of scientific methodology. Yea, one light day. Big deal. By the way, if you think relativity tells us what time is, don't accuse others of not being familiar with it! Edited February 18, 2020 by dad -1
swansont Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 1 minute ago, dad said: You detect them from the fishbowl. Always. You didn’t answer the question. 1 minute ago, dad said: So then, show us the experiment in deepest space that shows it is the same? Again: the burden of proof is yours
MigL Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 3 minutes ago, dad said: "This theorem only applies to continuous and smooth symmetries over physical space." Need I point out that it does not even address time in deep space? Any physical space. If it holds for differentiable symmetries over you street block, It holds everywhere the conditions are met. And I suggest you read on about time translation symmetry.
dad Posted February 18, 2020 Author Posted February 18, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, swansont said: You didn’t answer the question. Again: the burden of proof is yours There is no burden of anything for 'I don't know' Only those claiming they do know bear that puppy! And I did answer the question. You see all light here in the fishbowl from anywhere. You see, unless time existed the same out there, and space, there are no distances to any star known! So you are in posiyion to discuss from where. 2 minutes ago, MigL said: Any physical space. If it holds for differentiable symmetries over you street block, It holds everywhere the conditions are met. And I suggest you read on about time translation symmetry. Forget physical space you made that up. You don't know what space is either! I suggest you tell us how anything about time translation symetry applies to deep space. Otherwise do not bring it up again. Define 'physical' space and then prove it also exists in the fringes of the universe? Edited February 18, 2020 by dad -4
Phi for All Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 1 minute ago, dad said: There is no burden of anything for 'I don't know' Only those claiming they do know bear that puppy! It's not so much a claim as predictions based on observation that have worked in every testable situation. Theory is about the best available explanation, not about what is "known". If observation doesn't match the theory, the theory is changed. But why change it when it works? You're just nit-picking in a meaningless way, and that comes from someone who loves to pick a nit.
Recommended Posts