Block universe vs two senses of now.

[Strange]

 

Which part of this, is nonsense to you, if all parts are actual fact that everybody agrees with?

 

This: "My model has two nows that are actual"

 

And this: "There is a universal now".

 

And this: "The universe is 13.8 billion years old for all observers"

 

The one we see, and the one we imagine.

 

Note that your imagination does not make up part of the physical world and therefore does not have any relevance to scientific theories.

 

You seem to think that your intuition/guesses/imagination should be given the same credibility as well-tested theories based on objective evidence. You are wrong.

[tar]

Was reading about the relativity of similtaneity on Wiki and they used a device to show that faster than light travel by a tachyon of 2.4 times the speed of light, would result in impossible cause and effect relationships, therefore the speed of light is the speed limit that all fields, impulses, information and particles must obey, and nothing can "make the trip" faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. It is my contention that one must be careful to not make the trip of any distance, instantaneously, in ones imagination, without imaginarily taking the time, that light would take to get there, to make the trip.

 

That is, from the one corner of your system, to the far corner, there is a distance, and while this distance can be transversed in your mind in an instant, it cannot be transvered, by any pulse or particle in less time, than it would take light to travel the distance, so there are NO two points were an event is happening at the "same" time as an other event, when you consider the universe happening from a particular point of view, a particular observer, that has a here and now. Any observer sees close stuff soon, and far away stuff, much later. The only way you can consider any distant event as happening at the "same time" as your existence, is to consider ALL events as happening at the same time, 13.8 billion years after Big Bang, and every observer gets to see what has already happened, in a lagged manner, consistent with the distance of the event.

 

Regards, TAR

Strange,

 

Well, according to observation, which part of the universe, as in what event, has happened 13.9 billion years after the big bang?

 

Can you name any current observer, real or imagined, that is in a spot in our universe that is either older than, or younger than 13.8 billion years old?

 

If you cannot, then wouldn't it be true to say that everything in the universe is currently as old as the universe?

 

Regards, TAR

Edited August 17, 2015 by tar

[Strange]

Can you name any current observer, real or imagined, that is in a spot in our universe that is either older than, or younger than 13.8 billion years old?

 

It depends on their past acceleration, the gravitational field they are in, etc.

[tar]

Strange,

 

Well, being a philosophy section, I would ask you to parse this statement of yours from an objective viewpoint.

 

"Note that your imagination does not make up part of the physical world and therefore does not have any relevance to scientific theories."

 

If you are just talking about my lack of understanding or agreement with other people's theories, I can agree with your statement. If the weight of evidence and observation and figuring is against me, that is one thing. But you cannot impugn imagination as not making up the physical world, and therefore not having any relevance to scientific theories, because anybody's theory is imagination that does not make up part of the physical world, that has absolute relevance to a scientific theory, as that it is a scientific theory.

 

Regards, TAR

 

You say there is no universal now, yet you use the concept all the time. I have heard many speak of there being parts of the universe that we see now, that are actually currently farther away from us than current event there will ever be shown to this galaxy.

[Strange]

 

The only way you can consider any distant event as happening at the "same time" as your existence, is to consider ALL events as happening at the same time, 13.8 billion years after Big Bang, and every observer gets to see what has already happened, in a lagged manner, consistent with the distance of the event.

 

That would only allow you to say things happen at the same time to the nearest billion years or so. Not very useful.

 

On the other hand, if you know the distance between two events, and the time it took the signal to arrive, then you can say whether they were simultaneous or not (in your frame of reference - other observers may, of course, disagree as there is no universal now).

[tar]

Strange,

 

"It depends on their past acceleration, the gravitational field they are in, etc."

 

And how would one find these things out? Against what standard would one measure these things?

 

Regards, TAR

[Strange]

Strange,

 

"It depends on their past acceleration, the gravitational field they are in, etc."

 

And how would one find these things out? Against what standard would one measure these things?

 

Regards, TAR

 

Using an accelerometer?

[tar]

Strange,

 

But what I am saying is that simultaneous only means anything from either here and now, or in a general, conceptual sense. The order of events can be judged as different from different heres and nows, but there is only one actual order of events, when looked at in terms of the age of the universe.

 

Regards, TAR

Strange,

 

"Using an accelerometer?"

 

You can only use an accelerometer if you are here and now. You can't use it for someone else in a different place.

 

The bone I am picking, in terms of the block universe, is that it does not allow an absolute past present and future to exist for all points and places in the universe, which is exactly contrary to my formulation, which very simply, and accurately, in conjunction with most observations, does, not only allow for, but require that each observer has an absolute past, present and future, consistent with and dependent upon the rest of the universe, which is entirely unobservable in regards to what is actually happening everywhere now, but which is only pertinent to here and now, in regards to the photons or other slower than light effects that the rest of the universe has upon any particular point within it.

 

So you can joke about using an accelerometer as a "well of course, dummy" type statement, but my question is where is this accelerometer, and when is the reading being taken?

 

I am asking you to set the standard of time and place. The block universe does not set this standard. The two senses of now, as in here and now for any one observer, and the universal now in terms of all observers taken together, actually sets a standard, that adds back up correctly to explain things like seeing a photon from the Sun now, that was released, 8 seconds ago and knowing that there is a photon being released now, that we will see in 8 seconds.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited August 17, 2015 by tar

[Strange]

But what I am saying is that simultaneous only means anything from either here and now, or in a general, conceptual sense.

 

If you mean that simultaneity is dependent on the observer, then you are correct.

 

but there is only one actual order of events, when looked at in terms of the age of the universe.

 

And this is wrong. Different observers can disagree about the order of the events. Therefore they can disagree which occurred earlier. There is no "actual" order of events.

[tar]

Strange,

 

But here exactly is our disagreement.

 

I say there IS exactly an actual order of events. That there must be, and you can not see a photon until after it is released.

 

Sure a guy on Venus will see the solar flare before the guy on Earth and it will already be past by the time the kid on Mars sees it. But the flare only happened once. The observations happened at different times, consistent with the position of the observer, relative to the event.

 

Regards, TAR

By the same token, "when" the solar flare occurs can be seen as a different time from two observers with synchronized clocks, one at the top of the mountain, and another at the bottom of the valley beside the mountain. My contention is, that the two clocks are correct and synchronized, in one sense, and incorrect and not sychronized in another sense. If for instance, the both clocks were to be set to 0 the next time they saw a solar flare, then the third time they saw a solar flare, they would see it, at exactly the same clock tick, even though they are positioned however many picoseconds apart.

[Strange]

I say there IS exactly an actual order of events.

 

And you have been proved wrong. Over 100 years ago.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Strange

[tar]

All observers would agree the first flare happened before the second and the third flare happened after the second. Even a spaceship headed toward the Sun at relativistic speeds or one headed away would see the three flares in the actual order they occurred.

How can my theory have been proved wrong 100 years ago, if I am just formulating it now.

[Strange]

The fact that you may be able to contrive an example where ordering is preserved (in this case because the events happen at the same location) does not make it generally true.

[tar]

I am giving you that fact, that observer A and observer B can disagree on the order of events.

 

But when they compare notes, and calculate the distances and lag time of light and field and impulse, the order of events is always just one order.

[Strange]

By the same token, "when" the solar flare occurs can be seen as a different time from two observers with synchronized clocks, one at the top of the mountain, and another at the bottom of the valley beside the mountain. My contention is, that the two clocks are correct and synchronized, in one sense, and incorrect and not sychronized in another sense. If for instance, the both clocks were to be set to 0 the next time they saw a solar flare, then the third time they saw a solar flare, they would see it, at exactly the same clock tick, even though they are positioned however many picoseconds apart.

 

If they are different altitudes, then their clocks will tick at different rates and so they will each record a different time when they see the second flare. This can be tested pretty easily with off the shelf equipment.

[tar]

My prediction is, that the order of events at one location is always going to be found to proceed in a causual past present future way.

[Strange]

I am giving you that fact, that observer A and observer B can disagree on the order of events.

 

But when they compare notes, and calculate the distances and lag time of light and field and impulse, the order of events is always just one order.

 

And you are wrong. Repeating it doesn't magically make it true.

 

They will calculate the order of the events, taking into account the distance and light travel time. Having done that, they will (or may) disagree on the order of the events.

My prediction is, that the order of events at one location is always going to be found to proceed in a causual past present future way.

 

This is true for events at the same location. Congratulations.

 

It is also true if event A (at one location) causes event B (at another location). In this case, all observers will agree that A preceded B.

 

But it is not generally true that observers will agree on the order of spatially separated events.

[tar]

But recording a different time, means very little, without telling me what clock they are both using that ticked 0, at the same moment, for them both. And most importantly, what you mean by same moment. Same from "here and now" or same from universal now (which you use, but have not conceeded to me?)

So what I am saying and what everybody else is saying are both consistent, in their predictions. People in different positions can see the order of events differently. People traveling between positions have a constantly changing position, and the events that are in the direction they are going will happen appropriately sooner than if they stayed stationary, and the things they are traveling away from will happen appropriately after they would have been judged to have happened had they stayed stationary.

[Strange]

But recording a different time, means very little, without telling me what clock they are both using that ticked 0, at the same moment, for them both. And most importantly, what you mean by same moment.

 

I didn't say anything about "the same moment" (for very good reasons).

 

You said: "If for instance, the both clocks were to be set to 0 the next time they saw a solar flare, then the third time they saw a solar flare, they would see it, at exactly the same clock tick, even though they are positioned however many picoseconds apart."

 

They will not see the third flare at the same clock tick. They will each see a different time because of their different altitudes.

 

 

Same from "here and now" or same from universal now (which you use, but have not conceeded to me?)

 

I have not used a "universal now". At least, I have tried hard not to; if I have it was in error.

 

 

People in different positions can see the order of events differently.

 

But you seem to think that this is just because the light takes longer to reach one of them, if one of the events is further away. Or something. As always, it is hard to know what you think!

[tar]

Strange,

 

Last night, when I thought I was dropping this discussion, as I hate neg reps, and was being cast as a crackpot in pursuing it, I had a thought, that I refrained from asking about, as it is consistent with me being "unhappy" with the formulations that result in time dilation and length contraction, and doubting the Lorentz formulae, that many things are based on, is problematic and puts me automatically in many people's eyes, in crackpot land. But, although it might sound bad, I really do have a "problem" with the geometrical formulation that stems from considering the light clock that bounces between to mirrors on the the spaceship, that must travel a longer distance according to the outside observer, and only the distance between the mirrors, from the point of view of the scientist on the spaceship. My question is, if the light pulse is coming from the bottom mirror, going straight up, and the top mirror moves to the right, why does the light pulse even hit the top mirror, since it has moved to the right, while the light was in transit. In order to hit the top mirror, the light pulse would have to "lead" the top mirror, in the same manner that a gunner would attempt to shoot down an aircraft. You aim toward where the plane will be when the bullet reaches its altitude. So why would the scientist not have to angle his photon gun ahead, and thusly measure the same light travel distance and angle of incidence on the mirror, as the stationary observer?

 

Regards, TAR

Strange,

 

I know its hard to know, what I am thinking, because I am trying to express a worldview, that I have put together, trying to make sense of the observations and measurements of others, and sometimes what I say is a question, and sometimes a statement. Ultimately I like to pretend that I am after answering the same questions as everybody else, and adjusting my model of the world to fit the facts as they come in. If I have an "answer" to one of my own questions, it is hard to express to you, because you often view my answers as being contrary to established science. This is certainly possible, since I am trying to find a way to remove contradictions, that certain ways of looking at things create. Its sort of like you standing in front of the formation and seeing the 10 columns infront of you, and me standing off to the left and all I see is the four soldiers at the ends of the rows, and you saying there are really 10 columns and me saying that there being 4 rows is not inconsistent with your statement. All I am trying to say is that the platoon has 40 people in it. And it does whether you see 10 people with the other 30 hidden behind, or whether you see 4 people with the other 36 hidden behind.

 

Regards, TAR

[Strange]

My question is, if the light pulse is coming from the bottom mirror, going straight up, and the top mirror moves to the right, why does the light pulse even hit the top mirror, since it has moved to the right, while the light was in transit. In order to hit the top mirror, the light pulse would have to "lead" the top mirror, in the same manner that a gunner would attempt to shoot down an aircraft. You aim toward where the plane will be when the bullet reaches its altitude. So why would the scientist not have to angle his photon gun ahead, and thusly measure the same light travel distance and angle of incidence on the mirror, as the stationary observer?

 

Imagine a boy on a train throwing a ball straight up and then catching it again when it falls. As the train passes you, the place where he catches the ball is not the same place where he threw it. Did he have to angle his throw to make the ball land in the "new" location (from your point of view? No.

 

This is certainly possible, since I am trying to find a way to remove contradictions, that certain ways of looking at things create.

 

As far as I can tell, the contradictions only come from your lack of understanding.

[tar]

If the clock in the valley is ticking at a different speed than the clock at the top of mountain, and it has been doing so, for the last 10 thousand years, shouldn't the valley and the top of the mountain be at different times according to relativity? What would that mean, in terms of me walking up the hill, picking up a rock, and carrying it down to the valley and putting it next to a rock in the river, that came off the top of the hill 10 thousand years ago. Are the rocks, formed of the same minerals, that were fractured from each other 10 thousand years ago, the same age, as in exactly the age of the universe, or are they different ages since one spent 10 thousand years on top of the mountain, and its brother spent the last 10 thousand years in the valley?

[Strange]

They are different ages. This is rather like the twin paradox, but with rocks.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Strange

[tar]

Strange,

 

You are mixing things up here. The ball has the same momentum as the train. Are you saying massless objects like photons, have momentum?

 

If that were the case, then there would be a difference in the speed of a photon fired in the direction of travel (c+v) and the speed of a photon fired behind (c-v.) That is not true in anybody's formulation, as far as I know.

 

Regards, TAR

[Strange]

You are mixing things up here. The ball has the same momentum as the train.

 

OK. Let's try it the other way round. You are on the train, the boy is one the station. As you pass him, the place where he catches the ball is in a different location (in your frame of reference). That has nothing to do with momentum, just Galilean relativity.

 

But you will probably have a hard time getting your head round that and claim it is not equivalent (no doubt you think the boy is "actually" stationary and the train is "really" moving).

 

 

If that were the case, then there would be a difference in the speed of a photon fired in the direction of travel (c+v) and the speed of a photon fired behind (c-v.) That is not true in anybody's formulation, as far as I know.

Yes, photons do have momentum. The relative speed of photons doesn't change depending on the frame of reference, but their momentum (a.k.a. frequency or wavelength or energy) does.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Strange