the universe and space....?

Yes Ican, I thought you'd like it. I bumped into it early on my "red shift" quest and it may still turn out to figure in my view of infinity in some way.

Actually it turns out that you need to be aware of Planck radiation and its possible variations in absolute length when attempting to figure the speed of light in relation to the speed of time. I ran into trouble with keeping up with the exponents.

But it does turn out (I think) that the speed of light is about 1/2 the speed of time. It may also turn out that "instantaneous" when we are talking about "discrete energy jumps" in the world of sub atomic physics may actually be only 2(c). But I sure as hell don't know it .

I'll be sure to let you know when I figure out the problem. Even just laying out the problem isn't nearly as easy as I thought it was going to be.
(understatement of the month ) Best, Mech


P.S. Do you have a special meeting house for Athiest twos. What a bumper sticker. " Drive carefully, Athiest two on board". Doesn't KNOW where he is going, or how to get there

ciceronei,

Very early on this thread, WE (royal one) determined that although I cannot determine that I exist I am able to show to my satisfaction that you exist.

So for the purposes of this thread I declare that an entity to be known as cicerone imposter shall exist outside of my perceptions but included in my perceptions as the entity known as cicerone imposter sees fit to exibit itself to my perceptions.

Will this do

Can you do the same for me

Great! That really settles that! That too is now probably a wrap!
What else do you wish to discuss?

Mech, How is it that you can prove I exist? The person you call "cicerone imposter" is perceived by you, but how do we know it's the reality?

What are the units of Planck radiation. Given that I can compute its variation in "length".



The speed of light in a vacuum is alleged to be the same for all observers in unaccelerated motion regardless of the speed of those observers. The relative speed of time is alleged to vary with the masses, and thus the gravities, of both the observer and that which is observed. The mass of an object is alleged to vary with a function of its rest mass plus its speed relative to the speed of light. So I think the speed of time does not have an absolute component, but is completely relative to mass such that it could theoretically approach zero (e.g., infinite time between tick and tock) as the mass of its neigborhood approaches infinity.

However, you may have a different understanding than I. Please explain your understanding if you think it is different than mine.


Probably! But that's possibly by no means certain! :wink:

Mech did not say he knew you exist. He wrote:



I interpret that to mean that he can show you probably exist. He cannot nor can you or anyone else prove to a certainty that you exist without assuming at least one thing that he cannot prove to a certainty is true.

I don't know what one assumption Mech might want to make, but for me to prove to a certainty that you exist, I would have to assume that a thing exists if and only if I cannot prove to a certainty that thing doesn't exist. Now, I must confess, that I don't know how to prove to a certainty that any thing doesn't exist. So until I learn otherwise, I think it is probably certain that it is possible that any thing you care to name and define exists, OR, it is possible that same thing doesn't exist.

Until you show me otherwise, I'm betting my life on the proposition that any thing I think exists, probably exists. Rest assured, I think you probably exist.

Ican has existence about right. Thats probably what I meant.

I would have said it like this. I cannot prove that I exist but I can show that something other than I must exist as I, by myself, could never imagine a name of ciceroneimposter. Therefore another entity must exist. Since this entity claims to be known as cicerone imposter I must assume his claims are valid. Therefore you exist. Do I

Ican, re speed of light. Yes, your understanding is similar to mine. To synopsize;

The absolute speed of light (the distance a photon-wave will travel in a given time is variable. But only to an independent observer. Any light we see cannot be seen by an independent observer, and we cannot be independent by virtue of our location.

But speed as determined by spacetime is variable due to the accelerations of gravity that are involved. This is why there is a "red shift", (a nickname for what is becoming my personal nemisis; rapidly )

If light is emitted from a massive object, the objects distortions of spacetime (the accelerations of gravity towards the object) will influence the absolute speed of light. The photons will be ejected from that region
to ours at a slower rate than they will be within that region. Since they will always propagate at the same speed they must necessarily be further apart when we observe them than they were at the point of emission.
This is the red shift. The blue shift would result as the photons are accelerated again in our spacetime. Terry has claimed, along with most modern cosmology, that the two effects would cancel out leaving only the actual speed of recession. This is the basis of the "Expanding Universe" theory. It alleges that all visible objects (essentially) are receeding and the greater the distance the greater the speed of recession. It futher goes on to assume that since all objects are receeding that they must have been at one location sometime in the past. This is called the "Big Bang".

Now do you see where the speed of time enters in? If the speed of light and the speed of time were the same the red shift and blue shift would cancel out. BUT time ( space time ) has no mass. Even a photon has mass. If a photon has mass then it presumably also has "inertia". The inertia inherent in a photon makes it impossible for it to travel the same speed as space time. Consider in this instance the speed of light is actually the speed of spacetime divided by two-- plus "c" . (probably but I'm still thinkin) .

Without calculating the speed of spacetime between observer and observed the red shift figures are meaningless with respect to an absolute expansion. This is what I have been trying to do, along with messing around too much with cousin Adam .

This, IMO, has skewed the red shift so far in favor of a "gravitational red shift" that one cannot reasonably assume that the observable universe is expanding. As another consequence one may fairly assume that if the Observable Universe is not expanding then there was probably no Big Bang. This leads us back to the steady state universe. That one I think will fly. That is what I am thinking, now.
A steady state universe needs no other dimensions. (imaginary)
It needs no Creators. (imaginary)
It needs no inflation. (juggling figures to make them fit a non extant expansion)
It needs no unknown forces. (again due to inertia if you were to blast something baryonic (real) to the speed of light you need a force that expands greater than the speed of light. Furthermore I assume that at a "Big Bang" the forces of gravity alone would actually make the speed of light go backwards. This IMO is a poor way to try and make an Expanding Universe.
It needs no purpose. Just Is. Happy thoughts, M

Ican, Sorry I missed it.

The wave length or frequency of Planck radiation is assumed to be the distance traveled by the outer shell of electrons about an atomic nucleus. Since it assumed that they travel at the speed of light this gives you a distance (wavelength). As far as my problem it turned out not to be necessary. A certain awareness of it is necessary however when one attempts to compute the "temperature" of outer space.

Look up, If you care to--
planck constant,
planck distribution law,
planckian radiation,
planck radiation law--

I do not know it well enough to explain it more adequetly, Nor do I feel that it is necessary to learn more about it vis-a-vis the red shift---yet!

This IMO is responsible for the assertion that "space" is 3.7 K, but I am not going to argue that------yet. Again, without more information, ie density, it is a meaningless figure to a mechanic.

or to a retired bean counter like me! LOL

[Mech: "density, it is a meaningless figure to a mechanic."]

I would suggest 'density' is of utmost importance; when trying to appraise the rarefied ether of 'spacetime'. :wink:

and, on a more serious note, I am still convinced that 'time' is merely a convenient 'device' for the defining of the relationships of objects to one another as they inhabit an 'event' within infinity. This renders 'light' as the 'aspect' of the relationship, and 'time' as the relative scale for comparison.

question: where light transmitted from a distant phenominon to the observer passes through 'normal' space, and, at the same time this light is bent by a gravitational lensing affect, do the straight and bent versions not demonstrate a variation in apparent 'distance' (and, therefore 'timeframe')?

Hmmm, that's an interesting idea. First, to make sure I understand your idea, I'll paraphrase it (please advise whether I have it right or not).

While the speed of light is constant relative to the environment of any observer whose observations are dependent on his environment (i.e., a dependent observer), the speed of light is not constant from the point of view of an observer independent of his environment (i.e., an independent observer). Light we see is not visible to an independent observer. That implies that light seen by an independent observer is not visible to us dependent observers. So it's valid to say that if and only if we see a photon, an independent observer cannot see that photon. This is true by virtue of your premise reworded: Photons we see are not visible to an independent observer.

Questions:
1. Who or what constitutes an independent observer?
2. What conditions does an independent observer have to meet in order for he/him/it to qualify as an independent observer?
3. Why can't an independent observer see the photons we see?
4. Does the independent observer possess the ability to become independent or dependent either as it pleases :wink: or as circumstances cause it one way or the other?
5. Do you presume that the universe has an outside as well as an inside?
6. If yes, do you presume the outside to be infinite also?





A photon is alleged to have zero rest mass. That implies that whatever mass (and of course inertia) it actually has is cause by its motion.

Question 7. But what is a rest mass resting relative to?



Question 8. What do you mean by an absolute expansion?



If the universe absolutely is, then it exists relative to nothing else including, but not limited to, independent "absolute observers". If the universe is independent of absolute observers, then "absolute observers must exist independent of the universe and not part of the universe.

Question 9. But if absolute observers are not part of the universe, what are they a part of?

This is enough for this old man. I'm going to fly with your cousin Adam.

Ican, My quoter doesn't want to behave tonite so I'll do this the old way;
From the top, your numbering.

1. Independent observer. One in a different space time field from the one in which the light is visible. You may note , that in this context, an "independent observer" is an oxymoron.

2. See Above

3. Because since we have "seen" them (absorbed their energy-changed their wavelength) they no longer exist as photons. (I prefer to call them particles and save the photon-wave duality discussion for later ).

4. Only as a "thought" experiment. No observer can be independent of both space and time simultaneously. The Abramic God has been hypothesised to "trancend time and space" and thus capable of functioning as a independent observer, but the observations that He shares with us are a bit confused .

5&6. I assume no outside or inside for that matter. I am assuming that you meant Cosmos or Whatam when you said "universe". They have not been shown to be the same, nor have they been shown to be different.
We don't KNOW if they are the same.

7. When a photon has the same speed as it's "absorber"- "observer" it will have no mass or energy. I will no longer exist as a photon-particle.
If you stop ie.change their speed to your speed, sufficient photons then you will notice that the wave length is changed. (Black top road on a sunny day, The principle of solar comfort heating etc.

8. Any regular motion, in this case galactic, that appears to have originated from a single point. ie, not orbital. The Big Bang--Expanding Universe theory .

9. Absolutely independent observers do not exist. If they were independent (not in our Whatam) they could not observe, and vice versa. Therin lies the rub. Also some reasoning behind "Multiverse, Multiple Dimension theories.

Enough, I spent the day sailing. I deserved it .

Mech,
Thanks. That clears up a lot for me.

More on another day.

Possibly you are right. However, time is not all that convenient a device because it varies with the mass/gravity of its environment as if it were more than a convenient device.



Yes. Please note a 'normal space' probably doesn't exist. All space is alleged to be infested to varying degrees with the gravity of mass: for example, light from a distant source passing over and around multiple masses. Some of those photons will imply a different apparent distance from the same source than others depending on the photon's actual route.

BoGoWo, Re time.

Yes I thought that also. Even argued it once upon a time. Not so long ago either. I remember (quoting myself) "Time is merely a human construction defined as a sequential ordering of events".

I believed that sincerely. You might even say I regarded it as Gospel. Still do; regard it as Gospel, that is.

But when I began to delve into "cosmic rays" I was disabused of that notion. Terry deserves some credit for sure, amongst others.

The best (IMO) evidence that time actually exists is found in discussions of cosmic (gamma or shorter) rays (particles). A gamma ray only survives in our spacetime a small fraction of a second. Yet the things have been noticed emanating from supernovas hundreds, if not thousands of light years away. How did something that decays in a second last hundreds of years in space?

The theory, and it seems tenable so far, is that they are traveling relative to spacetime so fast that time does not exist for them. All other particles that we know of, are less energetic and slower. The slower particles, photons (longer wave lengths) all shift ie, lose energy (frequency lengthens) in space time.

So therefore, IMO, you may be assured that time does exist in this universe. Aparently there is also a "speed of time" which is related to the masses involved. I have not figured out exactly how it is related, but I am not the only mechanic out there that has to scratch his head once in a while. And I'm scratchin, believe me.

If you think that I am full of it, and I may well be, I suggest you search "red shift" or "cosmic rays". There are several websites, all of which I thought worthwhile.

See you next time, M

A little further note, If you understand all that I have just said you are probably as confused as I .


Different wave lengths of electromagnetic energies travel at different speeds in different mediums. This is how a prism works.

They also apparently travel at different speeds in different spacetimes (gravities) . This is how a gravitational lens works. So this brings on a rhetorical question. What do we mean by the speed of light???.

If we are going to have a speed of light (c) we have to know where, when, and what color. The same must apply if you are going to describe a spherical universe some fifteen billion light years in radius. That is one reason why astronomers went to parsecs as a unit of measurement.

Ican, I need a little help. (understatement of the day perhaps )

I know the definition of a parsec, and I quote verbatim.

"A unit of measure for interstellar distance equal to a distance having a heliocentric parallax of one second".

Could you translate that into English? I have its equivalents handy but I'd like to know how to make one. (There is an intersteller lumber yard near here that I'm selling bridge timbers to. I am afraid that his ruler is a little long when he's buying and a little short when he's selling, so I need to make my own ruler sometimes . Thanx, Mech

Well, let's see what good ol' Merriam-Webster has to say.
www.m-w.com

Main Entry: par·sec
Pronunciation: 'pär-"sek
Function: noun
Etymology: parallax + second
Date: 1913
: a unit of measure for interstellar space equal to the distance to an object having a parallax of one second or to 3.26 light-years

(From my old college dictionary, 1 parsec = 3.26 light years = 19.2 trillion miles = 206,265 x the radius of the earth's orbit around the sun. I guess that radius is an average radius. Also I guess that one second is a measure of an angle. An angle of one degree = 60 minutes; an angle of one minute = 60 seconds; an angle of one second is tough to measure when dealing with bridge timbers.)

Main Entry: he·lio·cen·tric
Pronunciation: "hE-lE-O-'sen-trik
Function: adjective
Date: 1685
1 : referred to or measured from the sun's center or appearing as if seen from it
2 : having or relating to the sun as center -- compare GEOCENTRIC

Main Entry: geo·cen·tric
Pronunciation: "jE-O-'sen-trik
Function: adjective
Date: 1686
1 a : relating to, measured from, or as if observed from the earth's center -- compare TOPOCENTRIC b : having or relating to the earth as center -- compare HELIOCENTRIC
2 : taking or based on the earth as the center of perspective and valuation
- geo·cen·tri·cal·ly /-tri-k(&-)lE/ adverb

Main Entry: par·al·lax
Pronunciation: 'par-&-"laks
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French parallaxe, from Greek parallaxis, from parallassein to change, from para- + allassein to change, from allos other
Date: 1580
: the apparent displacement or the difference in apparent direction of an object as seen from two different points not on a straight line with the object; especially : the angular difference in direction of a celestial body as measured from two points on the earth's orbit

Any questions

I have one! How big is that bridge?

Ican, The bridge goes from here to there. :wink:

Thanks for the information. I just built a parsec gauge. It looks like this-- An Isosceles Triangle with angles of

89:59:59.5---89:59:59.5--00:00:1 degrees
respectively

The base is the change in Earths position about the sun per 1/4 year.
Each leg is a parsec.


The mechanical errors inherant in this gauge make a lot of the
measurements --observations thatI had accepted more wish than fact.

May I observe that there are a lot of people who are using a lot more faith than fact in their understanding of the universe without being aware of it. The faithful are not all thumping bibles.

Thank god.........

Assuming we are all there, where's here?



I'm guessing, but I thought the base was less than the diameter of the earth (i.e. less than 12 hours worth of rotation). I estimate that if the base were a 1/4 orbit around the sun, the apex angle of your isoceles triangle would be much greater than one second -- more like 90 degrees. Assuming your guage were strictly 2-dimensional with zero curvature (sum of the angles must = 180 degrees), then each of its base angles would have to be 0.5 seconds less than 90 degrees as you indicated.

But what if the guage's legs have curvature?

If the curvature of both legs were to follow (i.e., lie upon) the surface of a perfect sphere, the base angles could each be exactly 90 degrees at that imaginary sphere's imaginary equator, whether the apex angle was anywhere from 1 second to 360 degrees. For example, imagine that your guage's legs lie on the surface of a sphere with the center of the sun at its pole and with the earth at its equator.

Now add that to your red shift pot!



Praise the Lord and pass the admonition!
or
Praise the chance and pass the dissertation! :wink: