Universal time constant

[LaurieAG]

Originally Posted by freeztar

I suppose this would be what you are calling the universal time constant. But as soon as one observer starts moving, it's relative again. Since things in the universe don't tend to sit still, I think the concept of the universal time constant is not very meaningful, except as a thought experiment.

Hi Freeztar,

That might be true if it were impossible to co-ordinate movements and timing between satellites and ground stations as both of them are not standing still in any relative sense. I don't think the satellite people call this universal time although it would be based of some sort of absolute reference point calculation made for each different object each different time.

It's also easy to see how relative viewpoints can confuse things in the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise. Viewing things from one relative point or the other lead to perceptual confusion while an observer at the absolute viewpoint, the finish line, would have no doubt about who arrives there first.

[LaurieAG]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Nonetheless, it doesn't seem like this second dimension of time would necessarily give rise to a universal time constant.

Why would you add another relative time dimension to your model? Why wouldn't you have a relative time dimension, relative to everything that's moving, and an absolute extra dimension that is fixed, that all relative things move with direct relation to?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by LaurieAG

Why would you add another relative time dimension to your model? Why wouldn't you have a relative time dimension, relative to everything that's moving, and an absolute extra dimension that is fixed, that all relative things move with direct relation to?

This was discussed earlier in the thread as the idea of an observer being outside the universe. In this case, yes, you would have a universal time constant, but only from that theoretical observation point.

[LaurieAG]

Originally Posted by freeztar

This was discussed earlier in the thread as the idea of an observer being outside the universe. In this case, yes, you would have a universal time constant, but only from that theoretical observation point.

Hi Freeztar,

I read that bit of the thread and wondered if the observer would actually have to be outside the universe?

There has been quite a bit said and theorised about the BB theory i.e. a central point for our universe that everything else expanded from. Obviously this theoretical observation point (and the absolute nature of the time going back to the BB) is in the same league as any observation point 'outside' or 'inside' the universe including the finish point in the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise (which is outside the 'scope' of the paradox even though it is the ultimate and absolute result of the race referred to).

Once again I say that there cannot be any judgement made on the relativity of bodies within the universe until we have a complete set of observations that are taken from a relatively stationary viewpoint (that counters three different angles of spin, planetary, solar and galactic). Once we have these (as close to absolute as we can get, and we have at best 1 out of the 3 now) observations we can apply the scientific method to determine if things are actually all relative or adjust our model to get closer to the absolute truth.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by LaurieAG

Hi Freeztar,

I read that bit of the thread and wondered if the observer would actually have to be outside the universe?

As events appear relative within the universe, it implies that one must be outside the universe to have a universal time constant. Of course, it's a bit silly to talk about being 'outside' the universe.

There has been quite a bit said and theorised about the BB theory i.e. a central point for our universe that everything else expanded from. Obviously this theoretical observation point (and the absolute nature of the time going back to the BB) is in the same league as any observation point 'outside' or 'inside' the universe including the finish point in the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise (which is outside the 'scope' of the paradox even though it is the ultimate and absolute result of the race referred to).

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, Laurie. I think you are saying that at the big bang, inside and outside have no meaning? If so, I would agree on a philosophical level. I'm a bit perplexed how this jives with Xeno's paradox. Perhaps I'm just not interpreting your post correctly.

Once again I say that there cannot be any judgement made on the relativity of bodies within the universe until we have a complete set of observations that are taken from a relatively stationary viewpoint (that counters three different angles of spin, planetary, solar and galactic). Once we have these (as close to absolute as we can get, and we have at best 1 out of the 3 now) observations we can apply the scientific method to determine if things are actually all relative or adjust our model to get closer to the absolute truth.

I agree, it would be great to have more evidence to support the current theories. Still, I don't think we'll find the theories *so flawed* that we have to abandon them. It will most likely be more akin to tweaking. I'm quite confident that relativity theory applies to the universe at large without having empirical data that involves light year distances. Hopefully, one day, we can put this quiver of doubt to rest, or conversely, embrace something new.

[LaurieAG]

Originally Posted by freeztar

As events appear relative within the universe, it implies that one must be outside the universe to have a universal time constant. Of course, it's a bit silly to talk about being 'outside' the universe.

Maybe not that silly Freeztar,

My avatar image is the screen capture from a feedback loop that follows convention with regards to many of the developmental (mathematical) aspects of what we call relativity. While the screen capture is an exact copy of what an observer ,who has nothing to do with the actual feedback loop itself (i.e. outside its loopy universe), sees from an external viewpoint, the implications for these types of models (and Lorenzian manipulation etc) are more bizarre when you compare the theory with the practise. IMHO discrete relative puzzles like this can actually exist in relative physical isolation from the rest of the universe but should be able to be observed from outside the area where the phenomena occurs.

Originally Posted by freeztar

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, Laurie. I think you are saying that at the big bang, inside and outside have no meaning? If so, I would agree on a philosophical level. I'm a bit perplexed how this jives with Xeno's paradox. Perhaps I'm just not interpreting your post correctly.

When you take the viewpoint of either one or the other parties you get a paradox (mainly because the relativity is taken in 'absolute' isolation for each party) when in fact the only true absolute viewpoint for both parties is at the finish line. If you go back in time to the BB (i.e. follow the light particles or 'parties' back) you find the same 'absolute' viewpoint, at least in BB theory anyway (otherwise it couldn't be called BB).

Originally Posted by freeztar

I agree, it would be great to have more evidence to support the current theories. Still, I don't think we'll find the theories *so flawed* that we have to abandon them. It will most likely be more akin to tweaking. I'm quite confident that relativity theory applies to the universe at large without having empirical data that involves light year distances. Hopefully, one day, we can put this quiver of doubt to rest, or conversely, embrace something new.

Unfortunately nobody is even considering this spin free viewpoint. It shouldn't be that difficult to build a sphere (similar to a soccer ball with a lot more sections) made of simple mass produced sub assemblies that hold multiple sensors that can be drawn down or pushed up their own tube (all in sync) to get varying degrees of view depth (zoom) in a very short period of time.

Until this happens we are faced with the problem of distortions due to spin and data manipulation (is it actually 'correcting' or creating something entirely different from the spun data?) that is a combination of reality and a paradox.

Only time will tell.

p.s. The feedback model uses the electronic portion of the loop to substitute for a photon/particle going around the universe and returning back to its start point in finite time, repeatedly. This is completely different to the BB model even though it conforms accurately to what Poincare and Lorentz etc theorise.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by LaurieAG

IMHO discrete relative puzzles like this can actually exist in relative physical isolation from the rest of the universe but should be able to be observed from outside the area where the phenomena occurs.

That sounds like infinite regression to me.

When you take the viewpoint of either one or the other parties you get a paradox (mainly because the relativity is taken in 'absolute' isolation for each party) when in fact the only true absolute viewpoint for both parties is at the finish line.

Ok, I see the philosophical connection.

Unfortunately nobody is even considering this spin free viewpoint. It shouldn't be that difficult to build a sphere (similar to a soccer ball with a lot more sections) made of simple mass produced sub assemblies that hold multiple sensors that can be drawn down or pushed up their own tube (all in sync) to get varying degrees of view depth (zoom) in a very short period of time.

Until this happens we are faced with the problem of distortions due to spin and data manipulation (is it actually 'correcting' or creating something entirely different from the spun data?) that is a combination of reality and a paradox.

Only time will tell.

The 'spin effect' is only highly noticeable while on a spinning object's surface. Satellites are free from spin effect (mostly). In any case, physics is able to calculate for all these different variables. On a basic level, sidereal time is a good example.

This is completely different to the BB model even though it conforms accurately to what Poincare and Lorentz etc theorise.

Can you elaborate on this?

[watcher]

Originally Posted by REASON

But this time would be impossible to observe because it is impossible to be all places at once.

i think if this is possible, like the effect of a super luminal speed, time will not be absolute but instead will simply disappear. (t=0)

I still don't know if I have explained these ideas very well and I'm sure there are things I'm missing. But it's interesting to ponder.

you seemed to have used used your intuition to arrived at these ideas. but i think Einstein understood QM when he said the moon was not there when nobody is looking at it. he just can't accept or believed it because it so counter intuitive.

spacetime is a relative duality. their existence is co-dependant. one cannot exist without the other. there is no such thing as absolute time. at least not in our universe. IMHO

[LaurieAG]

Hi Freeztar,

Originally Posted by freeztar

That sounds like infinite regression to me.

Just like the paradox of an object falling into a black hole.

Originally Posted by freeztar

Ok, I see the philosophical connection.

The viewpoint is actually a physical location, not philosophical position, that turns the paradox straight i.e. stops it from being an infinite regression.

Originally Posted by freeztar

The 'spin effect' is only highly noticeable while on a spinning object's surface. Satellites are free from spin effect (mostly). In any case, physics is able to calculate for all these different variables. On a basic level, sidereal time is a good example.

Our planet rotates around the sun and our sun rotates around our galactic center. If looking from one or other relative viewpoints leads to a paradox (probably including infinite regressions) then the only proper way is to take observations from a stationary position relative to our planets orbit around our sun and our suns orbit around its galactic center.

Originally Posted by freeztar

Can you elaborate on this?

The attached images of a Poincare Section and the feedback loop (with 3 different angles of 'spin') show what type of equipment you need to create physically what the mathematics describes (i.e. it's not infinite regression because of the 30 fps hardware limitation). Incidentally my avatar image appears to be very similar to astronomical images of star formation.

Maybe we should try to remove the spin and have a paradox free look at things?

[eloxer]

I would like to add two or three remarks on that subject:

- In computer simulations you can compute a relativistic universe in rounds. Every state is computed from the previous state. These steps (or epochs) are the universal time. They can be quite tiny (meaning only few changes or small numeric changes to an otherwise discrete model - by the way: time is a property of discrete models alone - another indicator that the universe should be discrete and should not know continua). If you add distance to play a delaying role in interaction among particles, you'll get a relativistic model. Any complex structure on the inside cannot experience proper time now, since it must rely on state change comparisons, that are relative to speeds and distances. If that simulated structures were human creatures, they would have no means to measure this universal time.
- Even if you provided a program hack and provided an extra particle, that represents the universal time, to the inhabitants of the unverse this clock would be not very helpfull, since it would change its speed all the time.
- Einstein`s GR: One really misunderstood issue about GR is that it describes the physics of observation, not physics itself.
- I frequently observe, that people want to proove their ideas mathematically and philosophy is like the bad pill to take. They forget, that mathematics and current state of physics (which is quite absolete, to my knowledge) are bound by a common set of beliefs. Therefore, it is pointless to question the current state of belief and try to use mathematics that originated from these beliefs. Using math taken from classical physics will lead you to classical physics. Using math from quantum mechanics will lead you to an ever existing uncertainty about everything. Using math from GR will lead you to questions about time. The funny paradoxa that occur to us, and other things that should occur and do not occur, are due to beliefs about the unverse that form the mathematics. Therefore, in first place physics must be discussed philosophically. Mathematics kick in only when two people agree on the premisses. If there is just one thing, that cannot be explained via a set of beliefs, they must be questioned and so the resulting math. That´s the way science goes.
- I have read somewhere on the forum here, that since Universal Time cannot be measured, it doesn´t exist. What a fallacy. This argument is sometimes used by people who do not want to care and take responsibility (I didn`t see the guys beat the girl up). They just shut their eyes, so they don`t have to bother. It also reminds me of the behavioristic approach in psychology, where we know today, that behaviorism clearly has its limits.

Cheers to the forum: