ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags dark matter

Reply
Old 22nd April 2017, 11:16 PM   #1001
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,661
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Ferd, or you show me the false premises and invalid reasoning or you do not discuss at all.
But do not come up with this nonsense please. Thank you.
"You want hieroglyphics? They already exist. I don't have to be able to read hieroglyphics to give you my interpretation of what the ancient Egyptians wrote. Demotic? Never heard of it.
See, this little dude looks like a bird and this one looks like an eye. So how about if the pyramids were built by aliens?"

That's the level of your 'physics'.
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 02:17 AM   #1002
surreptitious57
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by Maartenn100
A photon in vacuum can be seen as the ultimate reference frame
It takes 8 minutes 17 seconds for light to travel the 92 900 000 miles from the Sun to the Earth. This knowledge is only possible from
the external reference frame of an observer. Because from the internal reference frame of a photon every distance and time would be
unknown. They do not experience time or distance since every journey is instantaneous regardless of time taken or distance travelled
__________________
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 03:32 AM   #1003
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,019
Don't you see it, Fuelair and Porpoise of Life? To me, it's very clear.

If you are an astronaut orbiting Earth, then you only see that you travel straight ahead.
One straight path, all the way. That's his observation.

Therefore, whatever he observes far away from Earth as curved space (not curved spacetime) is determined by his particular idea of the straight path he is following due to the curvature of spacetime by Earth's mass.

So, two observers on different altitude do not only have a different idea of the time rate passage of a clock, they also have a particular idea of what's a straight path through space in their curved spacetime environement.

And this idea of 'what's a straight path through space to me' determines what they will observe as being curved spaces somewhere else.
__________________

If the time interval of one second is everywhere the same for you, wherever you are in the universe, and you follow a straight path (in a curved spacetime) to you, your clock and your local idea of a straight path will determine what you will observe as being curved or expanded space outthere.

Last edited by Maartenn100; 23rd April 2017 at 03:39 AM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 04:31 AM   #1004
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,019
Originally Posted by surreptitious57 View Post
It takes 8 minutes 17 seconds for light to travel the 92 900 000 miles from the Sun to the Earth. This knowledge is only possible from
the external reference frame of an observer. Because from the internal reference frame of a photon every distance and time would be
unknown. They do not experience time or distance since every journey is instantaneous regardless of time taken or distance travelled
I agree with you. But I have a different interpretation of the same results.

To understand my point, you have to understand my hypothesis about time and space:

In my opinion, time and space do not come into being by the Big Bang.

In my opinion, time and spact start to exist if there is an interaction of an observer with spacetime (the universe in itself).

So, I do not believe in the big bang theory.
The observed recession of galaxies proportional to their distance to Earth (Hubble's Law), is in my opinion a relativistic observation of space, done by an observer in a reference frame.
This observed expansion of space over there has nothing to do with 'an expanding universe' in itself. (in my opinion)

It could be, that our minds and senses only give us access to the actual moment, the present. While the universe, or 'the block universe' (Brian Greene) is the existence of past, present and future events simultaniously.

But this is philosophy, of course. This is not physics.
__________________

If the time interval of one second is everywhere the same for you, wherever you are in the universe, and you follow a straight path (in a curved spacetime) to you, your clock and your local idea of a straight path will determine what you will observe as being curved or expanded space outthere.

Last edited by Maartenn100; 23rd April 2017 at 04:36 AM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 04:55 AM   #1005
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,130
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Ferd, or you show me the false premises and invalid reasoning or you do not discuss at all.
But do not come up with this nonsense please. Thank you.

OK, that's fair. It's more fundamental than your premises. To prove your interpretation you'll need to show us your math. You can't do the math*. You think philosophical arm-waving is sufficient. It's not.



Neither can I, but I'm not claimng to interpret physics.
__________________
Chicken is a vegetable-James May, vegetarian
Does it matter? it's all just a mathamatical construct and has no bearing on reality!-Sol88, on the subject of General Relativity
ferd burfle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 05:19 AM   #1006
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,019
Einstein said: time is an illusion
Physicist Brian Greene says: time is an illusion

I say: therefore, space must be an illusion too.

That's all I'm saying.
__________________

If the time interval of one second is everywhere the same for you, wherever you are in the universe, and you follow a straight path (in a curved spacetime) to you, your clock and your local idea of a straight path will determine what you will observe as being curved or expanded space outthere.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 05:45 AM   #1007
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 8,908
This is like watching a ten year old who has mastered a few simple tunes on his penny whistle attempting to play a Mozart flute concerto.

I blame the "you can do anything you put your mind to" fashion in child rearing. It's well intentioned, and children certainly respond to encouragement, but the fact is that there is a limit to everyone's talents and abilities. Some people will never be able to competently play a Mozart flute concerto, no matter how much they want to. And some people will never be able to fully understand Einstein's theories.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 06:01 AM   #1008
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,661
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Einstein said: time is an illusion
Physicist Brian Greene says: time is an illusion

I say: therefore, space must be an illusion too.

That's all I'm saying.
Einstein liked scrambled eggs.
Therefore he must have liked toast too.
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 06:20 AM   #1009
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,215
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
by which observer? which referenceframe?
Doesn't matter. Two null geodesics intersect at exactly two points, which can happen only in curved spacetime. The intersections and non-intersections are observer-independent.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Ok, you want some physics and mathematics?

Physics: If you use a photon in vacuüm, which has non-relative properties (no mass, no dimensions, absolute speed) as an absolute reference frame, what are the time- and spatial dimensions of the Universe in itself, observer-independent?
Your question is nonsense. If you knew the properties required of a "reference frame", you would not be suggesting a photon in vacuum could be used as a reference frame.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
This is physics and mathematics.
No. It's nonsense, being passed off as math and physics by someone who understands neither.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
It's already been proven mathematically that if you use a photon as a reference frame, there is no time, nor distance.
False. It is not possible to "use a photon as a reference frame"; the idea of doing so would never be suggested by anyone who knows what reference frames are in relativity or differential geometry.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
No math can explain this to you. That's an interpretation of the already existing math and physics, in words.
It's a misinterpretation, in babble.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Logical conclusion: every observer has his own particular idea of a straight path in space,
There are indeed many geodesics ("straight paths") through a manifold. That's true even in flat Euclidean manifolds: a straight line along the x-axis is not the same as a straight line along the y-axis.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
therefore he (or she) will have his own particular observation of a curvature or expansion of space (not spacetime!) somewhere else.
That's an illogical conclusion. The existence of two distinct straight lines in two-dimensional Euclidean space does not count as an "observation of a curvature" in that space.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
That's pure logical reasoning (to me), based on already existing math and physics.
It's nonsense, but I am not disputing the fact that Maartenn100's idea of "pure logical reasoning (to me)" is nonsense.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Ferd, or you show me the false premises and invalid reasoning or you do not discuss at all.
But do not come up with this nonsense please. Thank you.
Your entire discussion has been based upon nonsense. Two of your false premises (that photons can be used as reference frames, and that the existence of two distinct straight lines counts as an observation of curvature) have been identified above.

Now that two of your premises have been shown to be nonsense, will you follow the highlighted command you have given to others? Will you "not discuss at all"?

Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
This is like watching a ten year old who has mastered a few simple tunes on his penny whistle attempting to play a Mozart flute concerto.

I blame the "you can do anything you put your mind to" fashion in child rearing. It's well intentioned, and children certainly respond to encouragement, but the fact is that there is a limit to everyone's talents and abilities. Some people will never be able to competently play a Mozart flute concerto, no matter how much they want to. And some people will never be able to fully understand Einstein's theories.
We don't often see someone who has never picked up a flute say all of the professional flute players are doing it wrong.

When it comes to relativity, however, we do often see people who have never bothered to study math or physics say they understand the subject better than Einstein or Wheeler or Hawking or Kerr or Thorne.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 06:38 AM   #1010
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,795
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Don't you see it, Fuelair and Porpoise of Life? To me, it's very clear.

If you are an astronaut orbiting Earth, then you only see that you travel straight ahead.
One straight path, all the way. That's his observation.

Therefore, whatever he observes far away from Earth as curved space (not curved spacetime) is determined by his particular idea of the straight path he is following due to the curvature of spacetime by Earth's mass.

So, two observers on different altitude do not only have a different idea of the time rate passage of a clock, they also have a particular idea of what's a straight path through space in their curved spacetime environement.

And this idea of 'what's a straight path through space to me' determines what they will observe as being curved spaces somewhere else.
No, Euclidean and Non-Euclidean geometries are well defined.


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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry

In a Non-Euclidean parallel paths can meet, in Euclidean geometry they cannot.

Your "two observers on different altitude" both have the same definition of " what's a straight path through space in their curved spacetime environment.". In that each eventually returns to their starting point. So each knows they are traveling in a closed curved path.

Don't confuse flat with straight.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 06:54 AM   #1011
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 53,781
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Don't you see it, Fuelair and Porpoise of Life? To me, it's very clear.

If you are an astronaut orbiting Earth, then you only see that you travel straight ahead.
One straight path, all the way. That's his observation.

Therefore, whatever he observes far away from Earth as curved space (not curved spacetime) is determined by his particular idea of the straight path he is following due to the curvature of spacetime by Earth's mass.

So, two observers on different altitude do not only have a different idea of the time rate passage of a clock, they also have a particular idea of what's a straight path through space in their curved spacetime environement.

And this idea of 'what's a straight path through space to me' determines what they will observe as being curved spaces somewhere else.
You, I must assume , believe he cannot sight in on a particular object in front of him (or under or above him and his carrier) and notice it's position change as he moves forward relative to him/his container. In addition, the time shifts dependent on velocity are so minimal as not to be noticeable by a normal human. Check out the math, go to university for real and full physics re: this subject and learn. Oh, could you possibly cite the texts from which you picked up/learned your assumptions above.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 07:04 AM   #1012
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 53,781
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
I want to add something here.

The math is already there.
The physics of general relativity is already known.

But the interpretation and the logical implications of the theories of relativity for the fundamental nature of the Universe in itself cannot be explained with mathematics.

It can only be explained in words.
Yet, the people who know what they are doing (the ones we call Physicists and who have degrees and stuff) seem to much prefer the maths.!!! Would you prefer Physics left to words? (You do not have to answer that as we already have long seen your preferences - based on your level of knowledge.)
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 02:31 PM   #1013
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,687
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Do you believe in free will?
This thread is a demonstration of your free will to remain ignorant about science, Maartenn100, and write fairy stories based on that ignorance.
Even with bad English, an ignorant and incoherent post is not a theory of anything, Maartenn100.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 02:37 PM   #1014
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,687
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Does the Lorentz transformation also say that 'therefore, 'the observer's clock, and the observer's ruler in his own referenceframe are the standards for his space-observations somewhere else, wherever he is in the universe?
The Lorentz transformation states that an observer has his own clock and ruler which by definition are in his reference frame.

Hubble's law is the observation that an observer here on Earth measures galaxy velocities and distances in the observers reference frame and sees a linear relationship between them.

As we have been telling you for years, the velocities and distances would change (but not their relationship) according to the observers velocity, e.g. they could be in a spacecraft traveling at 0.9c. That is way there is a convection to use comoving coordinates in which all observers measure the same distances and times. Thus the age of the universe is 13.8 billion years in comoving time.

Last edited by Reality Check; 23rd April 2017 at 02:41 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 02:45 PM   #1015
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,687
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
A photon in vacuüm is the ultimate reference frame ...
Think about the known physical idiocy of using a photon's reference fame, Maartenn100!
The proper time interval between all events is zero.
All velocities are undefined.
All accelerations are undefined.
etc.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 02:57 PM   #1016
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,687
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Is a curved line in spacetime, a straight path to an observer in space, yes or no?...
Sorry, Maartenn100, but starting with a couple of posts of ignorance makes an easy argument to win.
A curved line in spacetime is a curved line in spacetime !
  • A straight line in curved spacetime is a curved line in flat spacetime. This is a fundamental part of GR.
  • Time dilation exists in SR.
  • Time dilation and gravitational time dilation exists in GR.
  • Curved spacetime is curved in "your own referenceframe".
    That is why gravity holds you to the surface of the Earth.
  • Everyone knows that the mathematical expression of spacetime in GR is an abstraction of actual spacetime.
  • We do "observe" a curvature in spacetime.
    For thousands of years and especially the last 400 years we have been looking at the orbits of planets. The last 100 years have shown that planets orbit according to GR with its curvature of spacetime.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 03:01 PM   #1017
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,687
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Ok, you want some physics and mathematics? ...
Ignorance of physics and math is not physics or math, Maartenn100.
A photon does not have an "absolute speed".
There is no such thing as an "absolute reference frame" - hint: what is the R part of SR and GR .
"time=0" is gibberish. "space=0" is gibberish. A time coordinate is not a number. The three space coordinates are not a number.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 03:08 PM   #1018
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,687
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Experimental proof: no centripetal forces (= PHYSICS) while you are orbiting a massive body.
Actual proof of ignorance of physics since this is centripetal force
Quote:
A centripetal force (from Latin centrum, "center" and petere, "to seek"[1]) is a force that makes a body follow a curved path. Its direction is always orthogonal to the motion of the body and towards the fixed point of the instantaneous center of curvature of the path. Isaac Newton described it as "a force by which bodies are drawn or impelled, or in any way tend, towards a point as to a centre".[2] In Newtonian mechanics, gravity provides the centripetal force responsible for astronomical orbits.
This is a measured, experimental force.
What GR states is that there is no actual force of gravity. A body orbits another body because it is following a geodesic (a "straight" line) in curved spacetime.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 05:42 PM   #1019
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,130
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
"You want hieroglyphics? They already exist. I don't have to be able to read hieroglyphics to give you my interpretation of what the ancient Egyptians wrote. Demotic? Never heard of it.
See, this little dude looks like a bird and this one looks like an eye. So how about if the pyramids were built by aliens?"

That's the level of your 'physics'.

This, Maarten, this. Read and try to understand this. This is why you fail.
__________________
Chicken is a vegetable-James May, vegetarian
Does it matter? it's all just a mathamatical construct and has no bearing on reality!-Sol88, on the subject of General Relativity
ferd burfle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2017, 07:33 AM   #1020
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,019
Some people say: we do not need conscious observers. Detectors, telescopes, measuring devices are much more accurate. So consciousness is irrelevant.

Let me give you this argument:

The Cern-scientists, will close after one day of hard work the door of his laboratory and had an eperience of an order of events that day, an order of events, which is not part of reality in itself.

The existence of a conscious being establishes an order of events in reality (time), which is not a property of the universe in itself.

The double slit experiment is an order of events, installed and experienced by a conscious observer, which is not a property of the reality of what really happens.

Time (and space) is an illusion,
Everything exists simultaniously (relativity)

You give the events in this world a chronology, which is not part of the universe in itself.

Time (and space) are characteristics of the act of obervation.
__________________

If the time interval of one second is everywhere the same for you, wherever you are in the universe, and you follow a straight path (in a curved spacetime) to you, your clock and your local idea of a straight path will determine what you will observe as being curved or expanded space outthere.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2017, 07:41 AM   #1021
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,037
Some people say?
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2017, 07:58 AM   #1022
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,661
Who do you think made telescopes? And who uses them? Conscious people. Nobody claims consciousness is not needed.

What people keep telling you is that an observer in physics is not the same as the colloquial meaning of observer (a person looking at something).
You keep trying to insert your concept of a soul into the laws of physics because they use the same word.
That is neither science nor philosophy. It's not even poetry.

What it is, is cargo cult magic. "If I build something that looks like an airfield, the gods will send us supplies. We don't need to know how or why.", or in your case: "If I use the same words scientsts do, whatever I say will be relevant to science. I don't need to understand the actual science"
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2017, 08:28 AM   #1023
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,019
But the difference between a measuring device (a detector of the electron as a particle f.e.), that the detector itself does not 'experience time'.

The conscious scientist experienced that day an order of events (the installation of the experiment, doing the experiment, studying the results), which is 'an experience of an order of events'. This order of events, however, is not a characteristic of reality itself. It's a characteristic established in reality by the existence of a conscious observer.

A measuring device does not experience time (the actual moment). A conscious observer does experience time (and space).

Time is an illusion. Not a characteristic of reality in itself.
The order of events experienced by a scientist, who is doing an experiment, is therefore an illusion.
(time= the experience of a particular order of events)

If time is the experience/observation of a particular order of events,
And if time is an illusion (not a characteristic of reality in itsel),

then the order of events, experienced by a scientist who is doing a scientific experiment, is an illusion, establishe by the act of observation of a conscious observer.

A detector can not experience time.
The conscious observer can experience the experiment and the detector in time.
__________________

If the time interval of one second is everywhere the same for you, wherever you are in the universe, and you follow a straight path (in a curved spacetime) to you, your clock and your local idea of a straight path will determine what you will observe as being curved or expanded space outthere.

Last edited by Maartenn100; 24th April 2017 at 08:29 AM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2017, 08:29 AM   #1024
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,795
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Some people say: we do not need conscious observers. Detectors, telescopes, measuring devices are much more accurate. So consciousness is irrelevant.

Let me give you this argument:

The Cern-scientists, will close after one day of hard work the door of his laboratory and had an eperience of an order of events that day, an order of events, which is not part of reality in itself.

The existence of a conscious being establishes an order of events in reality (time), which is not a property of the universe in itself.

The double slit experiment is an order of events, installed and experienced by a conscious observer, which is not a property of the reality of what really happens.

Time (and space) is an illusion,
Everything exists simultaniously (relativity)
No, ordering of events can only change if they are spatially separated. That is they happen at different spatial locations further than light can travel in the given time and thus they can not be causally related. See space-like separation. Events that happen at the same location but at different times or are causally related happen in the same order for all observers while those observers may still disagree on the span of time between those events.

http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/sussk...me-separation/


As relativity explicitly says that the simultaneity of spatially separated events is relative it can not state that "Everything exists simultaniously" as then that simultaneity wouldn't be, well, relative even for just spatially separated non-causally related events.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
You give the events in this world a chronology, which is not part of the universe in itself.
By all means please show in the coordinate transformations where "You give the events in this world a chronology"?

Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Time (and space) are characteristics of the act of obervation.
No "Time (and space) are characteristics of" a reference frame and you can transform coordinate values for space-time events from one frame to another.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 24th April 2017 at 08:37 AM. Reason: typo
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2017, 08:36 AM   #1025
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,795
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
But the difference between a measuring device (a detector of the electron as a particle f.e.), that the detector itself does not 'experience time'.

The conscious scientist experienced that day an order of events (the installation of the experiment, doing the experiment, studying the results), which is 'an experience of an order of events'. This order of events, however, is not a characteristic of reality itself. It's a characteristic established in reality by the existence of a conscious observer.

A measuring device does not experience time (the actual moment). A conscious observer does experience time (and space).

Time is an illusion. Not a characteristic of reality in itself.
The order of events experienced by a scientist, who is doing an experiment, is therefore an illusion.
(time= the experience of a particular order of events)

If time is the experience/observation of a particular order of events,
And if time is an illusion (not a characteristic of reality in itsel),

then the order of events, experienced by a scientist who is doing a scientific experiment, is an illusion, establishe by the act of observation of a conscious observer.

A detector can not experience time.
The conscious observer can experience the experiment and the detector in time.
Ah, nice to know that detectors don't deteriorate, get damaged or change at all over time. Guess what? Just going from not detecting to detecting the detector does in fact "'experience time'". Your 'no time experiencing detectors' can't detect anything since it "does not 'experience time'" and thus can not change.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2017, 08:38 AM   #1026
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,019
A detector does not experience an order of events.
The order of events of an experiment, experienced by a conscious scientist, is an experience of time established in reality by the conscious observer (i.c. the scientist), not an aspect of reality in itself.
__________________

If the time interval of one second is everywhere the same for you, wherever you are in the universe, and you follow a straight path (in a curved spacetime) to you, your clock and your local idea of a straight path will determine what you will observe as being curved or expanded space outthere.

Last edited by Maartenn100; 24th April 2017 at 08:41 AM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2017, 09:21 AM   #1027
wea
Critical Thinker
 
wea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: EU
Posts: 324
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
A detector does not experience an order of events.
go tell a non reversible sensor
wea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2017, 10:12 AM   #1028
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,795
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
A detector does not experience an order of events.
The order of events of an experiment, experienced by a conscious scientist, is an experience of time established in reality by the conscious observer (i.c. the scientist), not an aspect of reality in itself.

Again, not detecting then detecting is "an order of events" the detector must "experience" just to be a, well, detector.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2017, 10:29 AM   #1029
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 53,781
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
A detector does not experience an order of events.
The order of events of an experiment, experienced by a conscious scientist, is an experience of time established in reality by the conscious observer (i.c. the scientist), not an aspect of reality in itself.
Please feel free to substitute a selection of word and positions they are placed in that will cause this set of sentences to approach meaningful discourse!!!!!!!
PLEASE!!!!!
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 03:41 AM   #1030
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,019
The phenomena unfold themselves moment by moment to our conscious minds.
But in reality, in spacetime, that's not the ontological status of the phenomena.

To experience the unfolding of the events, moment by moment, is unique for a concious mind. A detector cannot have this experience, only if the detector has a mind.

To experience time is crucial. Only a mind is capable to do that.

The interaction of a conscious mind with spacetime, causes the experience of the unfolding of the phenomena, moment by moment. The experience of time.
__________________

If the time interval of one second is everywhere the same for you, wherever you are in the universe, and you follow a straight path (in a curved spacetime) to you, your clock and your local idea of a straight path will determine what you will observe as being curved or expanded space outthere.

Last edited by Maartenn100; 25th April 2017 at 03:46 AM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 04:20 AM   #1031
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,130
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
The phenomena unfold themselves moment by moment to our conscious minds.
But in reality, in spacetime, that's not the ontological status of the phenomena.

To experience the unfolding of the events, moment by moment, is unique for a concious mind. A detector cannot have this experience, only if the detector has a mind.

To experience time is crucial. Only a mind is capable to do that.

The interaction of a conscious mind with spacetime, causes the experience of the unfolding of the phenomena, moment by moment. The experience of time.

I look forward to reading your paper in a peer-reviewed journal where you present your evidence for the above.
__________________
Chicken is a vegetable-James May, vegetarian
Does it matter? it's all just a mathamatical construct and has no bearing on reality!-Sol88, on the subject of General Relativity
ferd burfle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 05:02 AM   #1032
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,011
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
A detector does not experience an order of events.
Perhaps you should define what you mean by "experience". It seems to me that you have tweaked the concept to be possible only by conscious minds. And next, you should explain what detectors actually do, when they do not experience time.

Quote:
The order of events of an experiment, experienced by a conscious scientist, is an experience of time established in reality by the conscious observer (i.c. the scientist), not an aspect of reality in itself.
The highlighted part is an assertion. You cannot prove that assertion. In fact, it is a meaningless assertion, because nothing will change whether it is true or not.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 08:58 AM   #1033
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,795
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
The phenomena unfold themselves moment by moment to our conscious minds.
But in reality, in spacetime, that's not the ontological status of the phenomena.
Well, then it can't be "spacetime" can it, as spacetime includes, you know, "time".

Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
To experience the unfolding of the events, moment by moment, is unique for a concious mind. A detector cannot have this experience, only if the detector has a mind.

To experience time is crucial. Only a mind is capable to do that.

The interaction of a conscious mind with spacetime, causes the experience of the unfolding of the phenomena, moment by moment. The experience of time.
As noted just before you can make your meaning of "experience" require a mind if you want, but it is just a semantic game. As your detector has to be able to, succumb to, acknowledge, be affected by, bare the results of, brook, sense, observe, admit, encounter, suffer, stomach, tolerate, undergo, put up with or whatever synonym you prefer rather than, experience, "the unfolding of the events" of detection just to be a detector. Your mind can't experience what the detector experiences unless the detector experiences.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 01:56 PM   #1034
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,687
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
But the difference between a measuring device (a detector of the electron as a particle f.e.), that the detector itself does not 'experience time'. ...
That is a lot of ignorance about experimental physics, Maartenn100, where detectors that 'experience time' are common . Oscilloscopes are used in many experiments and display signals that vary with time. Even the screens used in the double slit experiment 'experience time' since they do not detect all of the signal at one instant, e.g. the single particle variation is a single particle at a time at the detector building up an interference pattern.

The rest of the post and your last post are ignorant assertions.
Scientists do not determine the order of events in experiment - that is called scientific fraud and is one of the worst things that a scientist can be accused of!
Ditto for observers. It is the physics of the experiment that determines the order of events.

Time and space are physically real. Clocks exist and measure time. Rulers exist and measure space.

"Everything exists simultaniously (relativity)" is an ignorant fantasy about relativity. Relativity states that everything exists separately. An atom here on Earth is not the same atom in a galaxy billions of light years away. Relativity of simultaneity is that whether two spatially separated events will occur at the same time depends on the observers reference frame.

Last edited by Reality Check; 25th April 2017 at 02:57 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 02:53 PM   #1035
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,405
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Einstein said: time is an illusion
Physicist Brian Greene says: time is an illusion

I say: therefore, space must be an illusion too.

That's all I'm saying.
A dog had four legs, a table has four legs, therefore a dog is a dragon
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 02:55 PM   #1036
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,405
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
A detector does not experience an order of events.
The order of events of an experiment, experienced by a conscious scientist, is an experience of time established in reality by the conscious observer (i.c. the scientist), not an aspect of reality in itself.
Then how does your computer work and preform operations in sequence?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:15 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.