The Relativity of Time

[Beer w/Straw]

Oh, in relativity everything still happens at once... This isn't easy to explain, but let my at least try. This is just one of the bizarre things of relativity. We are special in this sense, that our brains have evolved to create a linear sense of time, because without it, there doesn't appear to be any conceivable way a human mind could comprehend itself or events. All there is in reality, are snapshots. There is no correlation between the snapshots. Correlation between snapshots may be understood when an observer is present because we have memory of a chronology of snapshots. There is no true chronology though.

So, there is time, but no true time. I once believed that time travel increases with time. Farisight, is adamant that time travel can never decrease with time. But, I now see we are both right because there is no chronological order of time.

Thank you very much for explaining it to me.

 

[Nightshift]

So, there is time, but no true time. I once believed that time travel increases with time. Farisight, is adamant that time travel can never decrease with time. But, I now see we are both right because there is no chronological order of time.

Thank you very much for explaining it to me.

If somehow I am wrong, and time does exist (even in face of all that is inside me knowing this cannot be true), there would only be an eternal present for each snapshot and none of those snapshots have a true chronology of order, just like how in my other thread, I showed work showing that this principle can even extend to galactic distances concerning events.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

What other thread?

 

[paddoboy]

3.) - Is it a "fact" of the theory that : "that matter came a short but finite time later"?

4.) - If "it" had yet to expand/evolve into "what we call space and time" - how can you, or anyone, postulate, hypothesize or theorize what length of "time" that this "it" was manifest as "a hot dense state, [singularity]"?

Sarcasm and facetiousness noted, but anyway, I have broad shoulders......

[1]The BB is not a theory about the origin of the Universe.

[2] The BB was not an explosion as we commonly view an explosion.

[3] The BB says nothing about the initial event or the first Planck instant after the event.

[4] The BB was an evolution of time and space from a hot dense state [including what we call the Superforce]

[5] The Universe did not evolve/expand into anything...it was everything that we know of[as far as we know]

[6] At the stage just after the first Planck instant, matter could not exist, as temperatures and pressures forbade it.

[7] The Superforce started to decouple, gravity first....

[8] Inflation occurred [a rapid FTL expansive rate for a small amount of time....

[9] The first fundamentals came into being as pressures and temperatures allowed, and excesses of energies from phase transitions and false vacuums allowed

[10] At 3 minutes the first atomic nucleus formed [proton and neutron]

[11] At 380,000 years pressures and temperatures dropped to around 5 or 6 thousand degrees K and allowed electrons to couple with atomic nucleii

[12] At about 400 million years the first stars were formed

[13] At 420 million years these first generation stars underwent supernovas after a short lifespan and spread their nucleosynthesised elements throughout the Universe

[14] From there it was plain sailing



Now dmoe, I know this will prompt more questions from you, and more sarcasm, and more attempts to catch me out, and more pedant rubbish etc etc etc

 

[Nightshift]

What other thread?

That order of events are even static on galactic scales, my thread next to this one.

 

[Nightshift]

Sarcasm and facetiousness noted....

... I actually thought it was a logical intelligent question. You're using a concept when there are no tools to define the concept.

 

[paddoboy]

... I actually thought it was a logical intelligent question. You're using a concept when there are no tools to define the concept.

Sure, from another individual maybe.....
And while the closer our theory gets to talking about scenarios near the BB, the less certainty is applied.
Still their tools far outweigh anything you and I are able to gather data from and use, correct Nightshift.
I do recollect that scientists are very comfortable with things from about t=0.01 seconds.
Before that scenarios are on extrapolation, logic and knowledge of particle physics.

 

[Nightshift]

Sure, from another individual maybe.....
And while the closer our theory gets to talking about scenarios near the BB, the less certainty is applied.
Still their tools far outweigh anything you and I are able to gather data from and use, correct Nightshift.
I do recollect that scientists are very comfortable with things from about t=0.1 seconds.
Before that scenarios are on extrapolation, logic and knowledge of particle physics.

Yes, we are quite happy with the BB. Only that perhaps we need to stop having this medieval attitude in which physics cannot change or even be refined. What I am proposing isn't going to destroy physics in any way, it would refine it for the better. We'd start taking relativity seriously, that there are no true chronological order of events and is actually like viewing the universe in imaginary time, except we are not, we are working in a non-Newtonian model of time in which there is no flow of time and reality is really an assortment of ''starts'' and ''stops'', just momentary fleeting flashes of existence which have no true order.

This is a world where we could simplify physics drastically when modelling our cosmological theory of the BB. No longer would the BB have to be the beginning of time, in effect, there was no beginning of time because time itself doesn't exist. There may have been... a beginning state of change which may be the definition of how time emerges, but to do so, we need matter fields. The universe was essentially static in relativity's eyes, for quite some time.

 

[paddoboy]

Yes, we are quite happy with the BB. Only that perhaps we need to stop having this medieval attitude in which physics cannot change or even be refined. What I am proposing isn't going to destroy physics in any way, it would refine it for the better. We'd start taking relativity seriously,

We do take SR/GR seriously...It's only a small minority, always seeking a type of one-upmanship, and the glory that would go with changing relativity, that don't take it seriously....And we seem to have them all here....for obvious reasons.

 

[paddoboy]

Even if your model, or one of the many models that the alternative theorists have raised here over the last few months, were to make predictions, at least as well as GR does, you still cannot invalidate GR.
You would need a solid prediction that GR couldn't predict that your model could.
And if that doesn't happen [forgetting peer review and all that, you are pushing shit up hill].

 

[dumbest man on earth]

paddoboy, I seek the benefit of your knowledge. To acquire the benefit of your Knowledge, I have no choice but to ask of you a few questions. Grok?

It is a fact that the BB/inflationary theory, states that 13.8 billion years ago, the observable Universe was confined to within the volume of an atomic nucleus......A state of existence that we know nought about.
...
From that point, and inexplicitly it started to expand and evolve into what we call space and time...and space/time as some prefer to refer to it....No matter as yet.

So..., In the ^^above quoted^^ you stated that : 13.8 BYA, "it started to expand and evolve into what we call space and time...No matter as yet".

If there was "no matter yet" :

1.) - What was this "it" that was expanding composed of?

2.) - What was this "it" expanding into? In other words, what was this "it" displacing to accommodate "it's" expansion?

paddoboy, a few more questions, so that I may continue to benefit from your knowledge.

But it still doesn't invalidate the fact that the BB says the Universe/space/time evolved from a hot dense state, [singularity] and that matter came a short but finite time later..

3.) - Is it a "fact" of the theory that : "that matter came a short but finite time later"?

4.) - If "it" had yet to expand/evolve into "what we call space and time" - how can you, or anyone, postulate, hypothesize or theorize what length of "time" that this "it" was manifest as "a hot dense state, [singularity]"?

paddoboy, once again, I am only asking these questions, so that I may acquire some benefit from your knowledge of the "facts" of the BB theory.

I thank you in advance for you sharing your knowledge.

Sarcasm and facetiousness noted, but anyway, I have broad shoulders......

[1]The BB is not a theory about the origin of the Universe.

[2] The BB was not an explosion as we commonly view an explosion.

[3] The BB says nothing about the initial event or the first Planck instant after the event.

[4] The BB was an evolution of time and space from a hot dense state [including what we call the Superforce]

[5] The Universe did not evolve/expand into anything...it was everything that we know of[as far as we know]

[6] At the stage just after the first Planck instant, matter could not exist, as temperatures and pressures forbade it.

[7] The Superforce started to decouple, gravity first....

[8] Inflation occurred [a rapid FTL expansive rate for a small amount of time....

[9] The first fundamentals came into being as pressures and temperatures allowed, and excesses of energies from phase transitions and false vacuums allowed

[10] At 3 minutes the first atomic nucleus formed [proton and neutron]

[11] At 380,000 years pressures and temperatures dropped to around 5 or 6 thousand degrees K and allowed electrons to couple with atomic nucleii

[12] At about 400 million years the first stars were formed

[13] At 420 million years these first generation stars underwent supernovas after a short lifespan and spread their nucleosynthesised elements throughout the Universe

[14] From there it was plain sailing



Now dmoe, I know this will prompt more questions from you, and more sarcasm, and more attempts to catch me out, and more pedant rubbish etc etc etc

paddoboy, any sarcasm or facetiousness was entirely imagined by you.

I once again tried my darnedest to pose intellectually honest questions of you!
I once again tried my darnedest to engage in an intelligent and rational discussion with you!
I once again tried my darnedest to have a discussion with you that would give you the opportunity to express your understanding and knowledge of the issues and subjects brought up for discussion on this Forum, that you that you are compelled to make yourself a major part of.

So...once again...you exhibit...I have no idea what you think you were exhibiting!
I do know though, that what you continue to exhibit is not a valid component of any Scientific Methodology, nor is it any type of Common Sense conduct that in any way leads to the advancement of understanding or knowledge.

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy, any sarcasm or facetiousness was entirely imagined by you.


I do know though, that what you continue to exhibit is not a valid component of any Scientific Methodology, nor is it any type of Common Sense conduct that in any way leads to the advancement of understanding or knowledge.

Yes, there was sarcasm, of course...no doubt about it....
But really, you had your questions answered anyway, to the best of my ability, so stop being such a bloody baby!

 

[dumbest man on earth]

[1]The BB is not a theory about the origin of the Universe.

Do tell, paddoboy! What is the BB theory about, exactly?

Now dmoe, I know this will prompt more questions from you, and more sarcasm, and more attempts to catch me out, and more pedant rubbish etc etc etc

Do tell, paddoboy! Catch you out of what, exactly?

 

[Nightshift]

We do take SR/GR seriously...It's only a small minority, always seeking a type of one-upmanship, and the glory that would go with changing relativity, that don't take it seriously....And we seem to have them all here....for obvious reasons.

If you're insinuating I am changing relativity in some way, I'd love to know what it is? You just don't understand fundamental limits and time isn't one of them. It's a low energy emergent phenomenon of matter.

 

[paddoboy]

Do tell, paddoboy! What is the BB theory about, exactly?

Well I'll tell you old chum........ The BB explains how the Universe evolved from a very tiny hot dense state [ a singularity] into what we see today.....It isn't an attempt to explain how the BB banged, or why the BB banged, or what initiated the expansion.
It simply explains it did, based on four main premises...[1] Observed expansion [we are able to mentally reverse that] [2] The CMBR [the relic hear from the BB], [3] The abundance of lighter elements, [4] and Galactic formation......

Sometimes those four premises are whittled down to three, but for you, and because I'm feeling extra benevolent today, and out of the good grace of my big heart, I've given you four.

 

[paddoboy]

If you're insinuating I am changing relativity in some way, I'd love to know what it is? You just don't understand fundamental limits and time isn't one of them. It's a low energy emergent phenomenon of matter.

You want to ignore one of the realities and reasons as to why the Universe exists.
That differs from GR as I know it.

 

[Nightshift]

You want to ignore one of the realities and reasons as to why the Universe exists.
That differs from GR as I know it.

And what reality is that?

 

[paddoboy]

Do tell, paddoboy! Catch you out of what, exactly?

Your past record of trolling, asking inane questions, repeating the same questions, misinterpreting posts, and generally whinging and whining is on record here for all to see.
If this is a sign of you turning over a new leaf, that would be nice......
But we'll see how things progress.

 

[paddoboy]

and what reality is that?

t-i-m-e

 

[Nightshift]

t-i-m-e

Paddo, do you find it naturally difficult to keep up with physics? It's just that, i don't know how many times I have told you, it is GR which predicts the timelessness. If you actually read any of the links I provided, or even the work, you'd know this.

You are saying GR doesn't say this, I'm saying get a grip! There is tonnes of citations provided to you saying this is the case. Deal with it.