The Universe

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : The Universe
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · Next

AuthorMessage
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 2257
Credit: 1,928,180
RAC: 160
Message 1899943 - Posted: 9 Nov 2017, 0:49:30 UTC
Last modified: 9 Nov 2017, 0:57:46 UTC

Perhaps two different subjects here, if not even more, but except for sometimes losing track of both time and place, even with a GPS,
my personal interest lies with that of perhaps believing in the Universe as a result of laws which came into existence when it was created.

If we next happen to question why the Universe came into existence, we also could be questioning a possible Creator for such a thing as well
and next it becomes one given context for such, rather than another.

Asking such a thing as "What came before the Universe", only because we could be left with such a Creator in mind and you next also change the reason for why
such a thing as Laws are also present for much the same.

If you take that of Creation myth literally, or at least part of it, it says "In the beginning, God created both the Earth and the Universe and next saw that it was good".

If perhaps so, it next becomes a difference already at the start, in possibly believing in both God and also the Universe.

But rather the fact that scientists choose only to run half the mile here, except for rather the whole of it, when asking questions about its existence,
assuming that it could be explained by such Laws.

The usual belief of thinking that perhaps water is interfacing that of air some times, but next that it should be the finger of God who once created Adam, the fact is that I do not
believe in such a story.

There perhaps could be a difference between humans and nature as well, but for that of the creation of the Universe as a whole,
I do not think we have a simple answer to the question.

If you think that Uncle Sam could both be lifting a finger, as well as sometimes help you as well, I do not think that this is of any much help either.

Both Laws and Equations are synonymous with elementary particles currently known and also the Theories which could be used in order to link everything together.

If perhaps Faith should be something else, most likely there should not be any Method of Proof for such a thing either, because it always ends up in a different context.

A given notion of God could perhaps be explained, but always in a different context than that of telling about both elementary particles and also any Laws.

Therefore, first think of what Creation itself is supposed to mean and next the reason for why it is happening, or being possible and you could be closer to an answer.
ID: 1899943 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gordon Lowe
Volunteer moderator
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Nov 00
Posts: 9781
Credit: 5,161,587
RAC: 2,698
United States
Message 1899945 - Posted: 9 Nov 2017, 0:57:36 UTC - in response to Message 1899906.  

No, ten years would pass on earth, the astronaut much less time. Just like time passes more slowly on the GPS satellite.

I'm having a hard time differentiating this concept from me taking a trip from New York to Los Angeles. If I'm a sightseer, and it takes me a year to drive the journey, a year still passes the same for everyone along the way, right? Even if I take a fast non-stop airplane, the same amount of time has passed for me and everybody else, right? Or does the fact I'm a little further away from the gravity of the earth, and going faster than the car, make time go a little slower for me versus everybody else on the ground?
The mind is a weird and mysterious place
ID: 1899945 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 2257
Credit: 1,928,180
RAC: 160
Message 1899947 - Posted: 9 Nov 2017, 1:20:28 UTC
Last modified: 9 Nov 2017, 2:04:08 UTC

Anyway Gordon, we already know that we could always choose to disagree, because I am catching your point.

Who started the discussion about time here as a subject and that even this subject could be within a framework, if not context of any else.

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

Is this supposed to be about the Standard Model of Physics?

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

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

Let us start here, perhaps, because that above became a small new one, except for that of Lorentz transformation, which is a longer article.

So, Lorentz factor down at the middle of the page could next make some relationship with that of the Butterfly effect, or its corresponding functions, or elements.

Next it should still be that of Special Theory of Relativity as well and therefore quite happy to read above.

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

Like the perhaps bad example of water sometimes interfacing air, that of space and time itself interfacing with each other, should rather be a better explanation.

If time could perhaps be quantisized, also we should know about the story for this as well, in that Einstein apparently was not fond of the idea.

Or if perhaps that of gravity itself and next that of time, in order to understand that of Quantum mechanics, I possibly get the order sorted out.

We could be left understanding the way space and time interact with each other, because while time could also be quantisized, it also could be put in a context for such and
become a "Frame of reference" for such a thing as well.

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

Here perhaps not the total explanation, but for now the closest I get, except for the other subjects dealing with that of time.
ID: 1899947 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 2848
Credit: 1,215,344
RAC: 206
United States
Message 1899952 - Posted: 9 Nov 2017, 1:52:07 UTC

I would like to revisit this 100 years from now and see how much of this has proven to be utter nonsense. But right now to me, in the great big scheme of things, all I have to say is what difference does it make?
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.
ID: 1899952 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary CharpentierCrowdfunding Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 21095
Credit: 30,530,368
RAC: 21,117
United States
Message 1899955 - Posted: 9 Nov 2017, 2:16:26 UTC

The issue with time dilation is you can't take the exact same path on the reverse trip.

There are several ways to visualize the concept. One being a "light clock" A single photon bouncing between a pair of perfect mirrors ticking off one second intervals. (Yes I know the mirrors are a bit far apart in reality, but as a thought experiment it works)

Sitting still you see the photon has a distance between the mirrors to go. As the you and the clock move faster the photon has to travel the distance between the mirrors and the distance forward you have gone. So the ticks are now farther apart. Most people understand that.

The thing most don't get is why time seems faster as you are heading to something. That is because you are overtaking the past. At your place you can only know about something after a photon takes a trip from the place it happened to you. So as you close the distance towards the source you run into the photons sooner than if you stayed put. This usually is thought of as the pitch of a train whistle or the Doppler effect. So red light is now blue. But red is the frequency or how many ticks of the light clock, blue is more ticks of the clock (as timed by your clock)

Now as to why the ages don't match when you get back, well you can't take the reverse trip in spacetime. But drawing a diagram will show you what actually happens. Have your traveler and earth bound agree to send each other a message once a year. Have one axis be time and the other how far away the traveler is. They exchange messages at the start and both clocks are in sync. A year later on earth the message goes out. But a year hasn't passed on the ship. It will be some time in transit before our traveler sees it. By the time he gets to the turn around point there are several messages in transit. As he comes back he runs into those messages. He runs into more than he sent.

I know I haven't given a picture yet. If you use years and light years a 45 degree is the speed of light. Have our traveler go half that or 22.5 degrees down and away from earth. Earth's time is a straight line down. Draw your message from earth at one years intervals heading to your traveler at 45 degrees or the speed of light. You will see on the return trip, a 22.5 degree line back to earth how he runs into many more messages.

For the travelers messages to earth take equal 1 year intervals along his path and draw 45 down to earth. Now it is rather obvious what has happened.
ID: 1899955 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile betregerProject Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 6427
Credit: 15,507,072
RAC: 10,098
United States
Message 1899956 - Posted: 9 Nov 2017, 2:30:02 UTC - in response to Message 1899945.  

If I'm a sightseer, and it takes me a year to drive the journey, a year still passes the same for everyone along the way, right? Even if I take a fast non-stop airplane, the same amount of time has passed for me and everybody else, right?

No if you take a fast plane you will experience less time than everybody else.
ID: 1899956 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile betregerProject Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 6427
Credit: 15,507,072
RAC: 10,098
United States
Message 1899957 - Posted: 9 Nov 2017, 2:37:43 UTC - in response to Message 1899952.  

I would like to revisit this 100 years from now and see how much of this has proven to be utter nonsense.

Bob, LIGO has proven this to be fact, spacetime is real and time dilation is real as demonstrated by GPS among many examples.
I f empirical evidence isn't good enough for you I'm sorry.
ID: 1899957 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 2257
Credit: 1,928,180
RAC: 160
Message 1899959 - Posted: 9 Nov 2017, 2:40:44 UTC - in response to Message 1899952.  
Last modified: 9 Nov 2017, 2:50:37 UTC

Really it should not be too difficult here, meant for both of you.

I think that we sometimes could be left thinking about the tools which could be used for that of a subject, including possible thinking,
which could mean possible Philosophy.

Einstein, like a couple of others, could perhaps think that everything is "Relative" and next both to that of subject, as well as thought.

If we make it "The Day After" for that of a movie for such an event, we are not supposed to be speaking of yesterday, but rather the day for today, literally.

A Chamaleon is perhaps not supposed to alter its shape, but rather its possible appearance, including that of coloring, but the four phases of the Moon could also be telling
about the way it is supposed to orbit the Earth.

Space is supposed to be explained by the Force of gravity and next that the notion of time could mean possible change.

Therefore ending lost in both space and also time could be a good explanation here.

We are always supposed to predict events in the future on the basis of that of time itself, so again time could be a constant, but perhaps next not so.

"Where are we coming and where are we going" are common questions which could be around, except for such a thing as time travel, or any Philosophical questions
which might be asked.

"Lack of an absolute reference frame" and except for perhaps not only on my mind, it also is stated in the article about Special Theory as well, a little down the page,
above that for Lorentz transformation, or rather "Reference frames, coordinates, and the Lorentz transformation".

To me this appears almost like Logic for that of a given thinking, except for perhaps any Logic itself when it comes to a subject.

An "Instantiation" could perhaps be an expression for that of a moment of time, if not perhaps an event itself.

If one given thing could perhaps be explained with something else, making it what it is not supposed to be, we always could be having both different explanations,
as well as Laws and Equations for a subject.

If a Prophet could perhaps be telling about a given future, it perhaps is not any speculation either, but rather that of a given knowledge based on thought.

Our ways of proving a couple of things could be quite different than making any guesses about a possible future, except for making it such a thing as Religion and Faith.

Is that of inflation, or the "Inflationary Universe" such a thing which could be explained by means of the Laws of Physics, or perhaps that of gravity?

There should always be a difference between an assumption and the fact that at least we could know about the Universe as it is today and also was in the past.

Make it that of an Prediction and you also could be having an idea, except for any time travel itself, which also could be possible.

If Einstein could be able to come up with such a Frame of Reference, also we should be guessing the possible consequences as well, if not making it an estimate for such.
ID: 1899959 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 2848
Credit: 1,215,344
RAC: 206
United States
Message 1899962 - Posted: 9 Nov 2017, 3:20:23 UTC - in response to Message 1899957.  

I would like to revisit this 100 years from now and see how much of this has proven to be utter nonsense.

Bob, LIGO has proven this to be fact, spacetime is real and time dilation is real as demonstrated by GPS among many examples.
I f empirical evidence isn't good enough for you I'm sorry.

You aren't the only one posting a hypothesis here and I wasn't specifically referring to your pet theory. But I am also not sure that LIGO has provided an infallible proof.
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.
ID: 1899962 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
syffy c

Send message
Joined: 26 Jan 17
Posts: 94
Credit: 126,092
RAC: 924
United States
Message 1899963 - Posted: 9 Nov 2017, 3:23:11 UTC

Nice explanation from Gary. Thanks.

LIGO has proven this to be fact, spacetime is real and time dilation is real as demonstrated by GPS among many examples.
I f empirical evidence isn't good enough for you I'm sorry.
It won't be good enough in 100 years either.

Make that +2
ID: 1899963 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gordon Lowe
Volunteer moderator
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Nov 00
Posts: 9781
Credit: 5,161,587
RAC: 2,698
United States
Message 1899965 - Posted: 9 Nov 2017, 3:38:20 UTC - in response to Message 1899955.  

The thing most don't get is why time seems faster as you are heading to something. That is because you are overtaking the past. At your place you can only know about something after a photon takes a trip from the place it happened to you. So as you close the distance towards the source you run into the photons sooner than if you stayed put. This usually is thought of as the pitch of a train whistle or the Doppler effect. So red light is now blue. But red is the frequency or how many ticks of the light clock, blue is more ticks of the clock (as timed by your clock)

The Doppler effect makes sense to me because I've experienced it, but turning that into an understanding of why a speed of light Alpha Centauri trip would look longer to those on earth than me is still out of my grasp.


Sitting still you see the photon has a distance between the mirrors to go. As the you and the clock move faster the photon has to travel the distance between the mirrors and the distance forward you have gone. So the ticks are now farther apart. Most people understand that.

That sort of makes sense - That the photon of light has to travel further to get back to point A because you're still in motion, but the clock at point A is ticking the same way as the clock at point B(me), isn't it? What I mean is, if I looked at the clock in my super fast traveling spaceship, the second hand would still be moving at the same pace as the second hand of a clock on earth, right? If not, that is where my misunderstanding takes place.
The mind is a weird and mysterious place
ID: 1899965 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Chris SCrowdfunding Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 40026
Credit: 34,689,932
RAC: 62,995
United Kingdom
Message 1899967 - Posted: 9 Nov 2017, 3:55:17 UTC - in response to Message 1899965.  

I'm with Gordon I don't fully understand time dilation either. All I do know is that they can set two atomic clocks, leave one on earth, and take anpther into orbit around the earth on a satellite or the ISS. Upon return to earth, the clocks are different. OK by millionths of a microsecond or whatever, but different.

Actually, I don't care why, I'm not a scientist or intellectual. Does it affect my daily life? No! Therefore I 'll let the scientists worry abut it.
ID: 1899967 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 2257
Credit: 1,928,180
RAC: 160
Message 1899969 - Posted: 9 Nov 2017, 4:13:23 UTC - in response to Message 1899963.  

Fully agree with you because again slapping my fingers here and it could also happen again.
ID: 1899969 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
moomin
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Oct 17
Posts: 90
Credit: 2,619
RAC: 70
Sweden
Message 1900038 - Posted: 9 Nov 2017, 16:37:21 UTC

So far Einstein is right.
General Relativity predicts that clocks go slower in a higher gravitational field. That is the clock aboard the GPS satellites "clicks" faster than the clock down on Earth.
Also, Special Relativity predicts that a moving clock is slower than the stationary one. So this effect will slow the clock compared to the one down on Earth.
If one does not compensate for the different clock speeds, the distance measurement would be wrong and the position estimation could be hundreds or thousands of meters or more off per day, making the GPS system essentially useless.

GPS satellite clocks gets ahead of the earth clocks by about 45 microseconds per day.
This means, if we do not factor in the time dilation, you'll get the distance to the satellites right on the first day, wrong by 13.5km the second day, 27 on the third day and so on.
https://www.quora.com/How-exactly-do-GPS-satellites-compensate-for-time-dilation-relative-to-the-earth-How-exactly-does-it-occur-How-significant-is-it
ID: 1900038 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary CharpentierCrowdfunding Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 21095
Credit: 30,530,368
RAC: 21,117
United States
Message 1900097 - Posted: 9 Nov 2017, 23:22:35 UTC - in response to Message 1899965.  

The thing most don't get is why time seems faster as you are heading to something. That is because you are overtaking the past. At your place you can only know about something after a photon takes a trip from the place it happened to you. So as you close the distance towards the source you run into the photons sooner than if you stayed put. This usually is thought of as the pitch of a train whistle or the Doppler effect. So red light is now blue. But red is the frequency or how many ticks of the light clock, blue is more ticks of the clock (as timed by your clock)

The Doppler effect makes sense to me because I've experienced it, but turning that into an understanding of why a speed of light Alpha Centauri trip would look longer to those on earth than me is still out of my grasp.


Sitting still you see the photon has a distance between the mirrors to go. As the you and the clock move faster the photon has to travel the distance between the mirrors and the distance forward you have gone. So the ticks are now farther apart. Most people understand that.

That sort of makes sense - That the photon of light has to travel further to get back to point A because you're still in motion, but the clock at point A is ticking the same way as the clock at point B(me), isn't it? What I mean is, if I looked at the clock in my super fast traveling spaceship, the second hand would still be moving at the same pace as the second hand of a clock on earth, right? If not, that is where my misunderstanding takes place.

Yes/no. Because of the speed of light, you can't be in both places to check both clocks at the same time. That's what sending each other messages at one year intervals is all about. (Replace the second hand with a light that flashes.) One year passes on earth, message sent*. Person on spaceship can't suddenly go back to earth to check the clock, he has to wait for news of the clock, the message or light flash, to arrive. He sees earth's clock slow, or red shifted. On the return trip he sees earth clocks as fast. Now from earth, it takes news that the spaceship is coming back a while to arrive. Until then earth sees the space clock as slow. This is where the earth ages and the spaceman doesn't.

For our triangle drawing, earth's path through spacetime is a straight line down. Our spaceship travels on two different straight lines. As the end points match, we have a big triangle. Earth's path is the hypotenuse and the spaceship the legs of the triangle. The spaceship can't take the same path back as it took out. Spacetime doesn't work that way because time is one way only.



*Using years, light years etc. just to keep the units the same.
ID: 1900097 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Chris SCrowdfunding Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 40026
Credit: 34,689,932
RAC: 62,995
United Kingdom
Message 1900166 - Posted: 10 Nov 2017, 7:08:33 UTC

General Relativity predicts that clocks go slower in a higher gravitational field. That is the clock aboard the GPS satellites "clicks" faster than the clock down on Earth.
This sounds similar to the practice many years ago of attaching a strong magnet to the front of a household electric meter to slow the dial down and reduce the readings to obtain lower bills. Putting anything that moves in a strong field of any kind slows it down apparently.

Also, Special Relativity predicts that a moving clock is slower than the stationary one. So this effect will slow the clock compared to the one down on Earth.
That would suggest that inertia or momentum maybe has something to do with it. If it were mechanical clocks like pendulum driven ones or balance wheels & springs etc, one could see why why movement would alter their time keeping*, but atomic clocks don't work that way.

The bottom line is that these differences matter in science and have to be understood and allowed for. I'm ha ppy to accept that it is so, and let greater minds than mine who are paid for it, worry about why.

* Yes we know automatic wristwatches need movement to self wind!!
ID: 1900166 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gordon Lowe
Volunteer moderator
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Nov 00
Posts: 9781
Credit: 5,161,587
RAC: 2,698
United States
Message 1900429 - Posted: 11 Nov 2017, 2:05:29 UTC - in response to Message 1900097.  

Because of the speed of light, you can't be in both places to check both clocks at the same time. That's what sending each other messages at one year intervals is all about. (Replace the second hand with a light that flashes.) One year passes on earth, message sent*. Person on spaceship can't suddenly go back to earth to check the clock, he has to wait for news of the clock, the message or light flash, to arrive. He sees earth's clock slow, or red shifted. On the return trip he sees earth clocks as fast. Now from earth, it takes news that the spaceship is coming back a while to arrive. Until then earth sees the space clock as slow. This is where the earth ages and the spaceman doesn't.

I feel like the explanation seems to be mostly about individual perception and semantics. I still don't understand the difference between the spaceship clock and the earth clock. In my mind, if both are the same type of clock, the same amount of time should pass wherever they are sitting, regardless of how fast they are moving through the environment.
The mind is a weird and mysterious place
ID: 1900429 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile betregerProject Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 6427
Credit: 15,507,072
RAC: 10,098
United States
Message 1900440 - Posted: 11 Nov 2017, 2:31:31 UTC - in response to Message 1899962.  

You aren't the only one posting a hypothesis here

Bob there is a difference between an hypothesis and a theory. An hypothesis is speculation, a theory requires some evidence. LIGO provided concrete evidence.
ID: 1900440 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15577
Credit: 55,039,092
RAC: 25,400
United States
Message 1900448 - Posted: 11 Nov 2017, 3:44:12 UTC - in response to Message 1900429.  

Because of the speed of light, you can't be in both places to check both clocks at the same time. That's what sending each other messages at one year intervals is all about. (Replace the second hand with a light that flashes.) One year passes on earth, message sent*. Person on spaceship can't suddenly go back to earth to check the clock, he has to wait for news of the clock, the message or light flash, to arrive. He sees earth's clock slow, or red shifted. On the return trip he sees earth clocks as fast. Now from earth, it takes news that the spaceship is coming back a while to arrive. Until then earth sees the space clock as slow. This is where the earth ages and the spaceman doesn't.

I feel like the explanation seems to be mostly about individual perception and semantics. I still don't understand the difference between the spaceship clock and the earth clock. In my mind, if both are the same type of clock, the same amount of time should pass wherever they are sitting, regardless of how fast they are moving through the environment.


A second is not the same for every observer. Time is not a constant value but a perception based upon the speed you are moving through space. The faster you are moving, the slower time goes because you are able "do" more in a second than someone moving slower than you.

For a different example, think back to the movie The Matrix, when Neo was on top the roof and he started shooting at an Agent, the Agent was moving so fast the bullets couldn't hit him because he was able to dodge them. Then the Agent returned fire on Neo and we saw time slow down as Neo dodged the bullets. From Neo's point of view, he could see the bullets moving toward him and he had enough time to react and move. From Trinity's point of view, Neo was moving so fast that he looked just like the Agent did moments prior. These are examples of time moving slower to the faster observer, as each observer was able to fit more into a second of time.
ID: 1900448 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gordon Lowe
Volunteer moderator
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Nov 00
Posts: 9781
Credit: 5,161,587
RAC: 2,698
United States
Message 1900458 - Posted: 11 Nov 2017, 4:24:43 UTC - in response to Message 1900448.  

Time is not a constant value but a perception based upon the speed you are moving through space

That's exactly where I have trouble understanding things. I don't disagree with the math on paper, or the reality in proof, but the idea that a second in time is different depending on how fast you are traveling still hurts my head.
The mind is a weird and mysterious place
ID: 1900458 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · Next

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : The Universe


 
©2017 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.