I can't find it right now. But she made a comment that a moderator then edited. I thought it was in this thread, but I can't find it. So I don't know whether I misremembered or whether it was deleted. Probably misremembered.
Ben
Nanoseconds after the Big Bang
- Thread starter RandomElement
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bang nanoseconds
I can't find it right now. But she made a comment that a moderator then edited. I thought it was in this thread, but I can't find it. So I don't know whether I misremembered or whether it was deleted. Probably misremembered.
Ben
AgingYoung
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 973
Thank you Ben. Could you post any thoughts of ~enigma~'s that relate to the idea of using the standard we presently use to measure time into the past of an expanding universe? I can't find any.
Gene
Gene
See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2386036#post2386036 where he showed that you got yourr reasoning about the effects of heavy mass in the distant past backwards.
Regards,
Ben
AgingYoung
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 973
Ben,
Out of the 156 words that enig has posted in response only 29 pertain to the idea I presented. That's a scant 18%. Here is the response:
A consideration of the idea of time and the observer in or out of an intense gravitational field shows the idea of relativity breaks down. An observer needs a clock. An atomic clock within the effects of a Bose-Einstein condensate isn’t going to operate more slowly solely as a function of the observation point; atomic motion is actually going to slow as a function of all atoms reaching the same energy state, or quantum state, and they coalesce into a blob of material called a "super atom." Your clock will run slower. That is assuming of course that a black hole (where there is intense gravity) is similar to what is called a super atom (contrived in a lab) and also the big bang began with the rapid expansion or inflation (or could be considered a super atom) as has been proposed.
So of that scant 18% of content 27% of it demonstrates a poor understanding of relativity. The idea of a clock running more slowly is a function of perspective in relativity not a function of the clock actually running more slowly.
My point was: When we take a clock running at the speed it is running in the present moment and use it to measure a time that is actually slower there are going to be some inaccuracies. I suppose that's how they find stars in the universe that appear to be older than the universe itself. But all of this isn't what is open for discussion at the moment; at least not from my perspective.
If you were to want me to take what you say seriously I would need to take a serious look at what you've said. Forgive the tautology. Looking at just a small part of what you’ve said…
To summarize (having taken a serious look at a small part of what you've said) I see an attempt to call an idea that I presented as a conclusion. It isn't. Then you claim I'm maintaining this 'conclusion' in the face of several people that have countered it. These people don't exist. You admit one hasn't even weighed in. A quick look at what you've said shows a clear case of manipulation. I would say you are overstating your case but that would imply you are loading up the table with facts. When you make things up they can't be considered facts. If you would like to overstate your case to keep me busy you need to stick with facts.
Cheers,
Gene
Out of the 156 words that enig has posted in response only 29 pertain to the idea I presented. That's a scant 18%. Here is the response:
A consideration of the idea of time and the observer in or out of an intense gravitational field shows the idea of relativity breaks down. An observer needs a clock. An atomic clock within the effects of a Bose-Einstein condensate isn’t going to operate more slowly solely as a function of the observation point; atomic motion is actually going to slow as a function of all atoms reaching the same energy state, or quantum state, and they coalesce into a blob of material called a "super atom." Your clock will run slower. That is assuming of course that a black hole (where there is intense gravity) is similar to what is called a super atom (contrived in a lab) and also the big bang began with the rapid expansion or inflation (or could be considered a super atom) as has been proposed.
So of that scant 18% of content 27% of it demonstrates a poor understanding of relativity. The idea of a clock running more slowly is a function of perspective in relativity not a function of the clock actually running more slowly.
My point was: When we take a clock running at the speed it is running in the present moment and use it to measure a time that is actually slower there are going to be some inaccuracies. I suppose that's how they find stars in the universe that appear to be older than the universe itself. But all of this isn't what is open for discussion at the moment; at least not from my perspective.
If you were to want me to take what you say seriously I would need to take a serious look at what you've said. Forgive the tautology. Looking at just a small part of what you’ve said…
- made no comment about the subject
- barely said anything pertinent and of that demonstrated an inaccurate understanding
- I presented an idea and really wanted to know what Scheibster's thoughts on it were
- You attribute to me a conclusion something that is only an idea I've presented; I frame no hypothesis.
- What I find inspiring is not relevant to the topic; you are impertinent
- nonexistant face
To summarize (having taken a serious look at a small part of what you've said) I see an attempt to call an idea that I presented as a conclusion. It isn't. Then you claim I'm maintaining this 'conclusion' in the face of several people that have countered it. These people don't exist. You admit one hasn't even weighed in. A quick look at what you've said shows a clear case of manipulation. I would say you are overstating your case but that would imply you are loading up the table with facts. When you make things up they can't be considered facts. If you would like to overstate your case to keep me busy you need to stick with facts.
Cheers,
Gene
Are you ignoring his point because he made it in very few words?
It shows no such thing. As you would understand if you understood relativity.
The key point of relativity is that it only makes sense to talk about observations made relative to an observer. Different observers are equivalent in that one observer's observations can be used to figure out what another observer would observe. It isn't that one observer is right and the other is wrong. Both are right and represent internally consistent pictures of what happened.
My wristwatch will have trouble operating within a blast furnace. That doesn't mean that time flows differently within a blast furnace. It just means that my wrist watch is not a good way to measure time within a blast furnace..
The difficulties that an environment poses to a specific measuring device has nothing to do with how fast time flows. A Bose-Einstein condensate may be hard for my clock to work in, but time still flows the same way there. Time does flow differently within a black hole, but the reasons why have nothing to do with it being a "super atom".
I note that you've confirmed your ignorance by indicating that we should take that bad analogy of yours with any seriousness whatsoever.
Again, the number of words used to make a point has no correlation with the validity of that point.
Furthermore I've been trying to figure out what you mean by your comment about clocks running slowly. It probably indicates further confusion on your part, but it is possible that you are just stating a correct point in an odd way. Given that everything else that you've said indicates that you think there is a "real" time and all other measures are wrong. Which view, of course, completely misses what the theory of relativity tells us. Which is that different observers measure different things, yet still agree on a consistent view of the universe.
And here is an example of your misunderstanding. It makes no sense to talk about a time that is faster and a time that is slower. It only makes sense to talk about elapsed time according to a given observer. (Normally it is most convenient to think about elapsed time according to an observer in space who is fixed relative to the distant stars.)
About the stars/universe discrepancies, you've thrown in a red herring that you again completely misunderstand. Everyone knew all along that the problem was almost certainly measurement error. The problem was sorting out whose measurements were wrong, and by how much.
The problem there is that there are two different ways of trying to find and measure very old things. The first one is that we try to measure the Hubble Constant (ie the rate at which the universe is expanding) and then we look at the red shifts of very far away objects and figure out their age. The second one is that we develop theories about how stars evolve over time, and use that to try to date very old stars and clusters that we can observe near us.
Back in the mid-90s the first method was giving ages of 8-12 billion years, and the second of 15-18 billion years. Both methods were based on long chains of measurements and assumptions, and it was clear that somewhere in the chain of reasoning errors had crept into one or probably both of these chains. (That's one reason that we try to find independent ways of measuring the same thing. Because it pushes us to discover and fix mistakes like this.)
Today (thanks in large part to the Hubble Space Telescope) we've made substantial improvements in the reasoning behind both methods of measuring. The first method, as you can see from http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/map_discovery_030211.html, now gives us an age of 13.7 billion years, +- 200 million years. And the first stars are believed to have been formed about 200 million years after the Big Bang. The second method now says (see http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_age_040817.html) that the Milky Way is 13.6 billion years old, +- 800 million years.
Those are consistent estimates, and we no longer have discrepancies between the two methods of measurement.
Let me see. I've acknowledged my mistake involving dr kitten. Contrary to what you say, what ~enigma~ said was very pertinent, and the misunderstanding was all yours. About Scheibster, I would be more inclined to agree with your interpretation if you hadn't said the exact same thing to me and made it not a question, and also hadn't seen fit to keep on repeating your post to try to make Scheibster respond. As it is, it really looks like you thought you'd shot him down. Which brings me to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2389132#post2389132 where you definitely did frame a hypothesis. And finally, what you find inspiring became relevant to the topic when you chose to derail have the thread into a discussion about it.
Doubly so when you have posts like http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2392810#post2392810 that indicate that you think that your religious philosophy is right, and science is only now in the process of figuring that out.
I invite anyone to review your posting history in this thread and compare our descriptions of it. They can make their own conclusions.
Regards,
Ben
Game, set and match, Ben.
AgingYoung
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 973
Ben,
Your analogy is faulty. If the blast furnace was all that existed, it would make more sense.
The very atomic motion we use to clock time in the beginning was slower than now. We are using fast paced clocks (relative to their speed at their origin) to measure the expansion of the universe. An actual atomic clock at the beginning of that expansion wouldn't appear to move more slowly from our perspective; it would actually be running slower. The difference wouldn't be accounted for as a result of perspective.
That is considering atoms existed; to be sure there came a point in time where they ‘formed’.
Gene
Your analogy is faulty. If the blast furnace was all that existed, it would make more sense.
The very atomic motion we use to clock time in the beginning was slower than now. We are using fast paced clocks (relative to their speed at their origin) to measure the expansion of the universe. An actual atomic clock at the beginning of that expansion wouldn't appear to move more slowly from our perspective; it would actually be running slower. The difference wouldn't be accounted for as a result of perspective.
That is considering atoms existed; to be sure there came a point in time where they ‘formed’.
Gene
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,754
Uh, NO.
If you cool down steam, the atoms slow down and it condenses into water. If you put an accurate clock in the steam while it is being cooled, will the clock slow down like the water molecules? No, it will not. A clock stuck in a bose condensate will likewise not slow down. How do we know? Because we've stuck clocks in condensates, in the form of light: the frequency of the light acts as a clock, and it does NOT get shifted by passing through the condensate. How can you tell? Easy: the absorbtion spectra for the gas atoms don't change when they condense.
I have no idea where you got that assumption, but it's wrong. One example: light WILL shift in frequency as it enters or exits a strong gravity well.
Wrong. Gravity wells slow down time. That's a fact, it is not a function of persepective.
Uh, no. That's not how it happens. First off, it's not individual stars which they calculate to be older than the universe, it's globular clusters. And they calculate that using models for how we think stars evolve, how far away they are, and how bright the stars in them are. That we get an answer which doesn't make sense doesn't mean anything at all about clocks, or the age of the universe: ALL it means is that there's some combination of errors in those three things (each of which is easy to make an error in) which add up to calculating a wrong age. It's not like looking at tree rings.
AgingYoung
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 973
Ziggurat,
You're so quick to disagree you restate what I've said then disagree with it. We are actually saying the same thing.
Gene
You're so quick to disagree you restate what I've said then disagree with it. We are actually saying the same thing.
Gene
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,754
No, we aren't. The early universe was not a gravity well. Gravity wells mean that there's a DIFFERENCE in gravitational potential between two locations. The universe being denser does not create any such difference between spatial locations. Your statement concerning the resemblance of bose-einstein condensates (BEC) and black holes is also nonsensical, and the idea that time slows down inside a BEC is counter-factual.
Ziggurat, don't take this wrong but you do realize that you are wasting your time don't you?
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,754
Yes, but I figured I'd have a quick go at it anyways.
No harm trying...just don't let this clown's bozone layer envelop you
AgingYoung
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 973
Ziggurat,
Finally I think I understand what you're saying. Your point is there is no difference gravitational potential between a present location and a past location in a universe that is being stretched out (or is inflating). Personally I think there is a difference but I'll consider your point.
Thanks.
Gene
Finally I think I understand what you're saying. Your point is there is no difference gravitational potential between a present location and a past location in a universe that is being stretched out (or is inflating). Personally I think there is a difference but I'll consider your point.
Thanks.
Gene
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,754
No, that's not what I mean. It only makes sense to talk about time slowing down in relation to something. Time deep in a gravity well is slow compared to time outside that gravity well: what we're comparing is different locations at the same time. But the universe itself is not a gravity well. If the universe is basically isotropic (which we assume it is on a large scale because 1. it looks that way and 2. if it isn't then we'd have to be at a very special location in the universe, which is unlikely), then no matter how dense we make it, there's no difference in the passage of time between different locations at the same time. There's no basis on which to say that time was slower or faster in the early stages of the universe, and the statement doesn't even make any sense.
AgingYoung
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 973
Ziggurat,
If it's all the same to you I'll consider the original idea I spoke to and not change the point to the degree that a relativistic view would be applicable. I'm not sure why you would consider measuring time today then using it to calculate speeds and distances in the past of a universe that is being stretched out to be 'the same time', yet honestly I'm not interested.
I'm quite done with this topic. Thanks for your time.
Gene
If it's all the same to you I'll consider the original idea I spoke to and not change the point to the degree that a relativistic view would be applicable. I'm not sure why you would consider measuring time today then using it to calculate speeds and distances in the past of a universe that is being stretched out to be 'the same time', yet honestly I'm not interested.
I'm quite done with this topic. Thanks for your time.
Gene
AgingYoung
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 973
Ben Tilly,
I really should have looked at your entire post before posting a response. That's how it goes sometimes. When I look at this part of your posting...
Originally Posted by Ben Tilly
...made after I posted these points....
...seems you're mistaken. Again.
Cheers bloke,
Gene
I really should have looked at your entire post before posting a response. That's how it goes sometimes. When I look at this part of your posting...
Originally Posted by Ben Tilly
...made after I posted these points....
- I didn't repost the quote several times imploring an answer, only to put it at the end of several ranters insisting on forcing their philosophies on me.
- Thank you (Scheibster) for responding. When I read your posts I have to do it slowly. I usually read them several times. There is no doubt you have a qualified opinion. Again, thanks for the response.
...seems you're mistaken. Again.
Cheers bloke,
Gene
TRANSLATION - I am too stubborn to change my view even in the face of an overwhelming overabundance of evidence otherwise. I am quite happy to live in my little fantasy world.
ETA - I don't get his problem. Time intervals are the same in any frame, is he jealous Einstein came up with special relativity?
Last edited:
trvlr2
Muse
Enigma- Nah, he's a first class fundament.
Is it time* for recipes or kittens?
*sorry, couldn't resist.
Is it time* for recipes or kittens?
*sorry, couldn't resist.