Does time exist in the far universe?

[dad]

We measure rate of change by the following relativity rules.

 

Lorentz transformation.

First two postulates.

1) the results of movement in different frames must be identical

2) light travels by a constant speed c in a vacuum in all frames.

 

No way to know how much time light takes to do anything in the far universe...irrelevant!! You need to prove time exists the same there first.

 

Consider 2 linear axes x (moving with constant velocity and [latex]\acute{x}[/latex] (at rest) with x moving in constant velocity v in the positive [latex]\acute{x}[/latex] direction.

Time increments measured as a coordinate as dt and [latex]d\acute{t}[/latex] using two identical clocks. Neither [latex]dt,d\acute{t}[/latex] or [latex]dx,d\acute{x}[/latex] are invariant. They do not obey postulate 1.

A linear transformation between primed and unprimed coordinates above

in space time ds between two events is

[latex]ds^2=c^2t^2=c^2dt-dx^2=c^2\acute{t}^2-d\acute{x}^2[/latex]

 

 

 

You cannot use identical clocks. Not in deep space. You may see two things move, but that does not tell us time exists as we know it on earth in any way at all.

 

 

Invoking speed of light postulate 2.

[latex]d\acute{x}=\gamma(dx-vdt), cd\acute{t}=\gamma cdt-\frac{dx}{c}[/latex]

Where [latex]\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}[/latex]

Time dilation

dt=proper time ds=line element

since [latex]d\acute{t}^2=dt^2[/latex] is invariant.

an observer at rest records consecutive clock ticks seperated by space time interval [latex]dt=d\acute{t}[/latex] she receives clock ticks from the x direction separated by the time interval dt and the space interval dx=vdt.

[latex]dt=d\acute{t}^2=\sqrt{dt^2-\frac{dx^2}{c^2}}=\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}dt[/latex]

so the two inertial coordinate systems are related by the lorentz transformation

[latex]dt=\frac{d\acute{t}}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}=\gamma d\acute{t}[/latex]

So the time interval dt is longer than interval [latex]d\acute{t}[/latex]

The above is what I would expect to see when one presents his own equation. The above isn't a full derivitave.

Several missing steps. It was for another post. However it provides a better explanation of the Lorentz transformations than merely posting a formula.

If your not using Lorentz then you need to define the coordinate transformation rules.

Here is relativity of simultaneaty coordinate transformation in Lorentz.

[latex]\acute{t}=\frac{t-vx/c^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/latex]

[latex]\acute{x}=\frac{x-vt}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/latex]

[latex]\acute{y}=y[/latex]

[latex]\acute{z}=z[/latex]

 

 

Now if you want to try and relate some of this seemingly random gibberish to the issue, try to do so. One cannot use the Lorentz transformation in deep space for time determinations. You have movement relative to other things THERE. Not here.

Edited April 11, 2016 by dad

[Mordred]

AH I see you have no knowledge of the basic relativity formulas.

 

Well here is a paper that measures and tests relativity using Pulsars at various distances.

 

http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/download/lrr-2003-5Color.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjMnpGPhobMAhVO42MKHUJUB9MQFggkMAY&usg=AFQjCNFcdj07CFxj96F1IoobgMgdHVS0vw

 

Point being relativity teaches us how observer influences occur due to gravitational potential and inertia

 

There has been hundreds of tests as to its accuracy.

 

Those mathematics above explain those observer to emitter influences,

 

Coupled with the known influences upon redshift, we can determine the rate of time at a specific mass density.

 

We know time isn't the same to all observers, yet if your in the same observer reference frame there is no time dilation.

 

In order to have time dilation with mass density you require a gradient in mass distribution at a particular time slice.

 

In cosmology this correlates to cosmic time, which employs a fundamental observer.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Mordred

[dad]

AH I see you have no knowledge of the basic relativity formulas.

 

Well here is a paper that measures and tests relativity using Pulsars at various distances.

 

http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/download/lrr-2003-5Color.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjMnpGPhobMAhVO42MKHUJUB9MQFggkMAY&usg=AFQjCNFcdj07CFxj96F1IoobgMgdHVS0vw

Relativity does not apply to time in deep space unless it existed. You are trying to obfuscate.

[Mordred]

No you obviously don't have a good understanding of GR, because it does apply.

 

I could show you mathematics but it would probably go over your head.

Particularly if you didn't understand the basic equations I posted.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Mordred

[dad]

No you obviously don't have a good understanding of GR, because it does apply.

 

No. It doesn't. Not as far as whether time exists there and exists the same as here.

I could show you mathematics but it would probably go over your head.

Particularly if you didn't understand the basic equations I posted.

 

 

 

You have no math that even addresses the issue. Face it. The math has to stand for something..represent something...you know...speed of light..etc... the issue is what the symbols represent, not whether you can spam a page of bogus math.

Edited April 11, 2016 by dad

[Mordred]

those equations use the invariance of the speed of light. In simple terms it measures how long it takes light to reach us. The amount of time.

 

What did you think it meant? Or did you even bother reading it?

 

If time did not exist at some mystical point, light from that point would never reach us.

In point of detail we can use the above mathematics to measure the amount of gravity from gravity wells using the Sache Wolfe effect.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachs%E2%80%93Wolfe_effect

 

which takes advantage of gravitational time dilation to measure mass density using the gravitational redshift formula.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Mordred

[dad]

those equations use the invariance of the speed of light. In simple terms it measures how long it takes light to reach us. The amount of time.

 

Based on what?

 

What did you think it meant? Or did you even bother reading it?

 

Show us how you think you know time exists in the far universe. The issue is what the basis is. Not listening to how much time someone claims something takes to move.

 

If time did not exist at some mystical point, light from that point would never reach us.

 

 

 

Another lame point and silly baseless claim. Who says light cannot travel in an area where time may be different than here?? Makes no sense. If time were woven in space in a way where (for example) there was less time in the mix...then it would take less time as we know it to move there...(not here)

Edited April 11, 2016 by dad

[Mordred]

We know time varies depending on the observer. We have a solid good working knowledge of how time varies.

 

However the speed of light is the same for all observers.

 

Using the invariants of the speed of light as our baseline we can measure the amount of time dilation.

 

By the formulas I posted above....

 

For gravitational time dilation this causes a change in frequency of light.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Mordred

[Strange]

Relativity does not apply to time in deep space unless it existed.

 

So provide an alternative model. And test it.

 

Simply saying everything we know may be wrong is not science. It is not even philosophy. It is just pointless gainsaying.

It was funny when Monty Python did it, but your shtick is not as clever.

[Mordred]

[latex]f=\frac{c+v_r}{c+v_s}f_o[/latex]

 

Using this formula if the light path enters a gravity well there is time dilation.

 

Ordinarily when it exits the gravity well the wavelength is restored.

 

However if the background mass changes while the light is in the well, we can notice a difference.

 

This forms the basis of the Sachs-Wolfe effect. Which is an application of using time dilation to our advantage.

 

This technique is handy in CMB measurements as well as mapping possible gravitational lenses, and potential variations in the rate of expansion.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Mordred

[Strange]

DFTT.

[Sensei]

That would mean light years are useless units. That would mean the universe in not billions of years old either of course.

 

Light year is unit of length, not time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-year

What deceptive falsehood. You observed nothing that involves proving time exists exactly as it does here at all.

 

How about pulsar star?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar

It spins around some axis, and periodically emitting beam of photons in the same direction (f.e. gas cloud, where it's reflected toward Earth, or Earth directly).

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

Frankly I'm disappointed that the first few responses in this thread focused on the agenda rather than addressing the question.

 

However, the more important issue is that the argument strategy of the OP is not going to fly. You asked a question and got answers to it. To summarily reject those answers without making any sort of counter-argument, or to take responsibility of defending the opposing point of view, just makes this what is called stirring the pot. Trolling.

 

So I'm going to do the equivalent of "shut your festering gob, you tit" and close this now. dad, don't re-introduce this, or try this strategy in another thread, or we'll ship you off to an old-folks home in another state.