Is the universe infinite or finite?

[ratiocinator]

Thank you, I understand space time is a mathematical model, but what I am expecting as an answer is how time detected in order for it to be measured by a clock?

Again, I'm not sure I understand the question. We know space is there because it separates points and we can measure it with a ruler. Time exists because it separates events and we can measure it with a clock. We now understand that the two things aren't separate and neither are absolute but vary with the reference frame (observer). We know the model of space-time is accurate because it has been extensively tested.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Again, I'm not sure I understand the question. We know space is there because it separates points and we can measure it with a ruler. Time exists because it separates events and we can measure it with a clock. We now understand that the two things aren't separate and neither are absolute but vary with the reference frame (observer). We know the model of space-time is accurate because it has been extensively tested.

I know that a clock is used to measure changes, but changing events are not caused by time, nor are the changes time, they are the results of other forces, but how do we detect that elusive entity Time itself in order to measure it.

Ok, so here is the question, is time created by change, or does time still exist when there is no change?

 

[ratiocinator]

I know that a clock is used to measure changes, but changing events are not caused by time, nor are the changes time, they are the results of other forces, but how do we detect that elusive entity Time itself in order to measure it.

If two events happen in the same place, one after the other, they are not coincident, so what separates them?

Ok, so here is the question, is time created by change, or does time still exist when there is no change?

The absence of change isn't really possible, but, in principle, assuming general relativity, space-time could still exist.

 

[`mud]

Why, in any thinking, does `time` move ?

We are moving through `space`, observing the lack of presence where we were,

that's the difference between where we are, to what we were,

That's `time` elapsed, called `space' or `time`. It doesn't move, we do.

`space` is unimaginably infinite, there cannot be a container, `voids` don't exist,

soo. .what holds the supposed container ? sooo..no containers, a lot of chalk dust with no chalk !

But we have momentum ......what was the `cause` that started the velocity of the mass in `space`,

and also the energy with it, energy was the cause ?

From where'd the energy come........I know, I know.......`God` did it !

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If two events happen in the same place, one after the other, they are not coincident, so what separates them?


The absence of change isn't really possible, but, in principle, assuming general relativity, space-time could still exist.

The difference between two events one after the other is a finite period in the continuation of existence, we can agree to call it a period of 'time'.

Any measured finite period of the 'time' (continuation of existence), regardless of change or no change, that finite period would be the same. And it would equally apply to the whole universe because the continuation of the universal existence is happening omnipresently.

 

[`mud]

Say ....WUT ?

 

[gnostic]

The difference between two events one after the other is a finite period in the continuation of existence, we can agree to call it a period of 'time'.

Any measured finite period of the 'time' (continuation of existence), regardless of change or no change, that finite period would be the same. And it would equally apply to the whole universe because the continuation of the universal existence is happening omnipresently.

Is it the same?

It has been well-tested time dilation occurred when astronauts come back, where the time elapsed differed and the clock is slightly off on the returning spacecraft, to the clock at command station (NASA's Houston).

Time is relative, not absolute.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Say ....WUT ?

It means the universal now is precisely the same everywhere in existence, it couldn't be any other way because that is what universal now means, it is omnipresent.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Is it the same?

It has been well-tested time dilation occurred when astronauts come back, where the time elapsed differed and the clock is slightly off on the returning spacecraft, to the clock at command station (NASA's Houston).

Time is relative, not absolute.

Clocks are proxies, they count their own internal pulses to provide a time readout, they are not measuring the continuation of existence directly. If there are two clocks counting their own internal pulses and one is subject to acceleration and gravitational forces that the other is not subject to, then when they come together again there will be a difference. Trust me, the difference is not due to the universe's continuation to exist causing the clock to slow down or speed up, that is impossible because the proxy clocks are not measuring anything external to themselves, like actual time (universal existence continuation) elapse period, they are merely measuring themselves. That is why clocks need to be synchronized from time to time, because they vary. /but that variation is not due to the universal now changing them.

 

[ratiocinator]

The difference between two events one after the other is a finite period in the continuation of existence, we can agree to call it a period of 'time'.

Okay, if you want to call time "the continuation of existence", I guess you can.

Any measured finite period of the 'time' (continuation of existence), regardless of change or no change, that finite period would be the same. And it would equally apply to the whole universe because the continuation of the universal existence is happening omnipresently.

This is experimentally falsified. Time does vary according to relative speed, acceleration, and gravity. The effects have been directly measured and the overall theory tested in multiple ways.

If there are two clocks counting their own internal pulses and one is subject to acceleration and gravitational forces that the other is not subject to, then when they come together again there will be a difference.

It doesn't even have to involve forces, relative speed alone produces time dilation. A 'clock' can be any physical process that takes a known time, so, for example, it applies to the half-life of particles such as the fast moving muons created in the upper atmosphere, far more of which reach the surface than would be expected without them experiencing time dilation (see here, and here). The GPS system has to take account of relativistic effects on time due to both the relative motion between the satellites and earth, and the gravitational difference (see here). The adjustments are precise and work exactly as the theory predicts.

Trust me...

Why on earth would anybody do that? I don't mean to imply that you're not generally trustworthy, but this is a question of solid science and a theory that has been tested in many ways and is, in the GPS system, in everyday use. Why would anybody trust some random person on the internet above that?

...the proxy clocks are not measuring anything external to themselves...

Quite remarkable, then, that no matter what sort of 'clock' we use, they all behave exactly as if relativity is correct.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Okay, if you want to call time "the continuation of existence", I guess you can.

This is experimentally falsified. Time does vary according to relative speed, acceleration, and gravity. The effects have been directly measured and the overall theory tested in multiple ways.

I can assure you that "the continuation of the universe' is not being measured with a clock directly, its output is independent of the "continuation of the universe". The effect of speed, acceleration, and gravity have an effect on that the clock and that associated with the speed, etc., but the universal now is still omnipresent.

It doesn't even have to involve forces, relative speed alone produces time dilation. A 'clock' can be any physical process that takes a known time, so, for example, it applies to the half-life of particles such as the fast moving muons created in the upper atmosphere, far more of which reach the surface than would be expected without them experiencing time dilation (see here, and here). The GPS system has to take account of relativistic effects on time due to both the relative motion between the satellites and earth, and the gravitational difference (see here). The adjustments are precise and work exactly as the theory predicts.

Here is an example, a space ship with a clock launches from planet earth, goes immediately to C speed which is maintained in a circular orbit that gets it back to earth one year later and immediately lands. What does the clock on board the spaceship show when it lands, how many days elapsed? For a clock on earth, from the beginning to the end of the trip, how many days? .

Now if you say less than one day for the spaceship and 365 days for the clock on earth, that's correct, for the ship's clock has not been working for one year. At C speed, it is not like in the movies, everything at that C speed is pure energy, like light. The theory of a human not aging on such a journey is theoretically correct if all the atoms that constituted them came back together again as before, but good luck with that possibility...I don't think so..

Anyways, the point is that the clock can not count when it is reduced to energy and would show zero days. The ship experienced one light year, a light year is the same length as a earth year, the spaceship and observers both experienced one year of the universal continuation.

As I say, the 'universal now' is omnipresent, it is not a refutation of relativity as far as I'm concerned, but it would seem that way to those who interpret it the way you are, ie., the perfectly normally operating clock on board is measuring "universal continuation" directly

Why on earth would anybody do that? I don't mean to imply that you're not generally trustworthy, but this is a question of solid science and a theory that has been tested in many ways and is, in the GPS system, in everyday use. Why would anybody trust some random person on the internet above that?

Quite remarkable, then, that no matter what sort of 'clock' we use, they all behave exactly as if relativity is correct.

I am not discussing relativity, I am explaining that clocks do not measure the "continuation of the universe" directly, they do indirectly using a proxy human built instrument that counts pulses and outputs 'time' calibrated to agreed upon standards that correspond to finite periods of "the continuation of the universe".

It is not esoteric, it is simple and straight forward. So clocks measure "time" indirectly, the spaceship travel time is not affected by the output of a non working clock, or in the case of space travel at less than C, with so called 'time dilation', actual spaceship flight times will always coincide with that of base control, not that registered on a clock affected by the forces of velocity, gravity, etc..

 

[ratiocinator]

I can assure you that "the continuation of the universe' is not being measured with a clock directly, its output is independent of the "continuation of the universe". The effect of speed, acceleration, and gravity have an effect on that the clock and that associated with the speed, etc., but the universal now is still omnipresent.

You can repeat it as much as you like. The evidence says you are wrong. As I said, you can take any physical process that takes a known time to be a clock, and relativity affects them all in the same way.

Here is an example, a space ship with a clock launches from planet earth, goes immediately to C speed...

You can't accelerate anything with mass to light speed.

At C speed, it is not like in the movies, everything at that C speed is pure energy, like light.

Nothing is 'pure energy'.

The ship experienced one light year, a light year is the same length as a earth year...

No, a light year is a distance, not a time.

This is a scientific question and it's becoming increasingly obvious that you don't understand the science. It's not a problem to not understand science (many don't) but when you then attempt to speak about scientific questions and tell people the science is wrong, that's rather silly.

It is not esoteric, it is simple and straight forward.

And wrong.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You can repeat it as much as you like. The evidence says you are wrong. As I said, you can take any physical process that takes a known time to be a clock, and relativity affects them all in the same way.

You can't accelerate anything with mass to light speed.

Nothing is 'pure energy'.

No, a light year is a distance, not a time.

This is a scientific question and it's becoming increasingly obvious that you don't understand the science. It's not a problem to not understand science (many don't) but when you then attempt to speak about scientific questions and tell people the science is wrong, that's rather silly.

And wrong.

"any physical process that takes a known time to be a clock"

Ok, a "physical process that takes time" is a proxy for estimation of age, a clock you say, well I am saying that a modern atomic clock, whilst also a proxy, provides a much more versatile and accurate measurement for finite periods of the continuation of the universe. Neither actually measure a physical entity, they measure human conceptions of finite period/s of eternal existence.

"You can't accelerate anything with mass to light speed."

Who says? NASA, USAF have and are still doing FTL studies.

"Nothing is 'pure energy'."

Nothing does not exist. But seriously, why do you consider em energy not pure energy?

"No, a light year is a distance, not a time."

So how long does it take for anything travelling at the speed of light to travel one light year?

"And wrong"

Well that's got me stumped!

 

[ratiocinator]

Ok, a "physical process that takes time" is a proxy for estimation of age, a clock you say, well I am saying that a modern atomic clock, whilst also a proxy, provides a much more versatile and accurate measurement for finite periods of the continuation of the universe. Neither actually measure a physical entity, they measure human conceptions of finite period/s of eternal existence.

I'm just outlining the evidence we have, and it tells us that the theory we have matches reality regardless of whether we are applying it to atomic clocks or the half-life of particles or anything else that we've tested it against. Also, the theory is not just about time dilation, it's a theory of gravity and it predicted gravity waves. In every way we've been able to test it, its predictions have been confirmed. Hence, it's the best model of time (space-time) we have, and I'll take an evidence backed theory over your vague hand-waving, any day.

If you want to just imagine that you know better, then I guess that's up to you, but you have no evidence and you have yet to provide any reasoning. I really don't understand the need some people seem to have to think they know better than people who actually study the subjects involved and have proper evidence.

Who says? NASA, USAF have and are still doing FTL studies.

The (extremely well tested) theory of relativity says. There are actually ways, in principle, to achieve 'faster than light' travel within the theory but they do so by distorting space-time itself, not by travelling faster than light with respect to the local reference frame (Alcubierre drive).

Nothing does not exist. But seriously, why do you consider em energy not pure energy?

Because it's not, see Matter and Energy. Basically, energy isn't 'stuff', it's always a property of something else. EM fields and radiation have energy but they aren't energy.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm just outlining the evidence we have, and it tells us that the theory we have matches reality regardless of whether we are applying it to atomic clocks or the half-life of particles or anything else that we've tested it against. Also, the theory is not just about time dilation, it's a theory of gravity and it predicted gravity waves. In every way we've been able to test it, its predictions have been confirmed. Hence, it's the best model of time (space-time) we have, and I'll take an evidence backed theory over your vague hand-waving, any day.

If you want to just imagine that you know better, then I guess that's up to you, but you have no evidence and you have yet to provide any reasoning. I really don't understand the need some people seem to have to think they know better than people who actually study the subjects involved and have proper evidence.

You believe you understand, so that's that. I am done repeating myself.

The (extremely well tested) theory of relativity says. There are actually ways, in principle, to achieve 'faster than light' travel within the theory but they do so by distorting space-time itself, not by travelling faster than light with respect to the local reference frame (Alcubierre drive).

Well the abstracts of paper I've read have different approaches. One from Putoff et al uses zpe in some form to project a gravitational center slightly ahead of the space craft, so that it is attracted to it and as it does so the gravitational projection stays ahead, till FTL is achieved. Anyways, we will watch this space for developments.

Because it's not, see Matter and Energy. Basically, energy isn't 'stuff', it's always a property of something else. EM fields and radiation have energy but they aren't energy.

Ah so, exactly, the universe is one and the all, and the universal now is omnipresent. So science without a universal frame of reference may only be partly true, true as an aspect of the whole, but the truth of the whole trumps the truth of an aspect. Not that they can't both be true, it depends on context and where it is being 'seen' from. The clearest view is from the universal now.

 

[ratiocinator]

You believe you understand, so that's that.

I'm not relying on my understanding, I'm relying on what I've learnt of scientific theories, i.e. the best we have available to us in terms of a well tested explanations.

Ah so, exactly, the universe is one and the all, and the universal now is omnipresent.

Don't get the 'exactly', there is no universal 'now' (again, according to the best tested theory we have) because simultaneity itself is relative.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm not relying on my understanding, I'm relying on what I've learnt of scientific theories, i.e. the best we have available to us in terms of a well tested explanations.

Well if I may suggest, your understanding is more important than belief. There will come a time when your understanding will see that a lot of what people believe is not the whole story.

Don't get the 'exactly', there is no universal 'now' (again, according to the best tested theory we have) because simultaneity itself is relative.

"Exactly" was more of an exclamation, nothing more. So if you believe in the best tested theories in existence that say there is no universal now, then that's it!

 

[ratiocinator]

There will come a time when your understanding will see that a lot of what people believe is not the whole story.

Well, a lot of what some people belief is simply wrong. As far as the understanding given us by science goes, I'm sure it will go on getting better and maybe some of the conclusions we've talked about will be replaced by something better. However, I'm happy to wait for evidence and not try to make something up for myself, or just accept what others have made up.

So if you believe in the best tested theories in existence that say there is no universal now, then that's it!

It's not a question of my belief, the best tested theory we have that deals with the nature of space and time is general relativity. There are other (untested) hypotheses and conjectures, but that's where we are today.

 

[gnostic]

"Nothing is 'pure energy'."

Nothing does not exist. But seriously, why do you consider em energy not pure energy?

You have misunderstood @ratiocinator.

I am quite sure ratiocinator means "pure energy" doesn't exist.

He wasn't talking about nothingness, he is talking about pure energy.

 

[gnostic]

Clocks are proxies, they count their own internal pulses to provide a time readout, they are not measuring the continuation of existence directly. If there are two clocks counting their own internal pulses and one is subject to acceleration and gravitational forces that the other is not subject to, then when they come together again there will be a difference. Trust me, the difference is not due to the universe's continuation to exist causing the clock to slow down or speed up, that is impossible because the proxy clocks are not measuring anything external to themselves, like actual time (universal existence continuation) elapse period, they are merely measuring themselves. That is why clocks need to be synchronized from time to time, because they vary. /but that variation is not due to the universal now changing them.

You seemed to be forgetting, that the evidence support Special Relativity in regards to time dilation, and the evidence also support General Relativity, where speed and gravitational forces have effect upon the clock, measuring time.

Evidence is all about observations, that include measuring the phenomena.

Lastly, I didn't bring up universe and the "universe's continuation". My only concern what evidence can be observed here, and not the rest of the universe.

I think it is pointless to talk of the whole universe, when our technology to observe the universe as a whole, is very limited.