Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason

[marcin]

@Harry Costas Yes, but for me the BB means crossing the observable universe event horizon by the spacetime itself. Right before it, the cosmic time of the previous cycle reached the point when it was running infinitely fast, and the previous CMB redshift was also inifinite.

 

[Harry Costas]

Hello Marci
I disagree
But that's me.

The Event Horizon time thing has no science behind it.
Time is not a physical item and cannot be compressed or expanded.

 

[marcin]

@Harry Costas The event horizon time thing is the light travel time and the age of the universe. Time is the 4th dimension that is inseparable from space and it's compressed and expanded just the same. You just need to multiply it by c to make it spatial. In fact, ct is the equivalent of space. Time expansion is time dilation - do you believe in it?

Your time dilation is my length contraction and vice versa

Einstein triangle from the time dilation triangle

 

[George²]

. Time is the 4th dimension that is inseparable from space and it's compressed and expanded

How would you explain the acceleration of chemical processes when there is a change (usually positive) in the temperature of the reactants and/or due to the participation of a catalyst. Neither the speed of light nor gravity changes, and yet from some points of view it seems as if time is accelerated.

 

[marcin]

@George² If the temperature is higher, the particles move faster, so they collide and interact more frequently. If there is a catalyst, it must cause the reactants to interact more frequently, probably by bringing them together. I'm not a chemist, that's what intuition tells me. I also think, that their dilated proper time has little to do with it. However, if the particles were moving and colliding at relativistic speeds, the distances between them would also significantly contract, but I'm almost certain that's not the case in chemical reactions.

 

[George²]

@George² If the temperature is higher, the particles move faster, so they collide and interact more frequently. If there is a catalyst, it must cause the reactants to interact more frequently, probably by bringing them together. I'm not a chemist, that's what intuition tells me. I also think, that their dilated proper time has little to do with it. However, if the particles were moving and colliding at relativistic speeds, the distances between them would also significantly contract, but I'm almost certain that's not the case in chemical reactions.

However, to an observer who knows nothing about chemistry, it appears as if relative time within the volume in which the interaction is taking place is accelerating. This is of course not the case, time is not a real, existing object in the universe. It is an imaginary measure invented by humans for their convenience.

 

[Catastrophe]

Just for clarification,

The passage of time does not accelerate. However, the rate at which time appears to pass can change.

Marcin " If there is a catalyst, it must cause the reactants to interact more frequently": correct.
"a catalyst causes ingredients to react more frequently by providing an alternative reaction pathway with a lower activation energy, essentially making it easier for the reactants to collide and react with each other, thus speeding up the chemical reaction without being consumed in the process." Google


Cat

 

[marcin]

However, to an observer who knows nothing about chemistry, it appears as if relative time within the volume in which the interaction is taking place is accelerating. This is of course not the case, time is not a real, existing object in the universe. It is an imaginary measure invented by humans for their convenience.

Page 9 - Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason

Page 9 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

forums.space.com

Moreover, if there was no physical time, there would be no physical velocity. You need both space and time to travel the distance in time. Nothing travels in space without the passage of time. Moreover, spacetime is one "physical object" which consist of both space and time that are inseparable in both special and general relativity. One doesn't exist without the other. Moreover, time dilation is the reciprocal of length contraction.

Sorry, you won't get rid of time just by wishful thinking and repeating that it's not real.

Edit: @Harry Costas this comment is also for you.

 

[Catastrophe]

As a Chemistry B.Sc., my explanation of catalysis is as follows

Consider two reactants, A and B, which react to form AB directly only slowly.
If a catalyst, C, is introduced, it might quickly form an intermediate AC, which then can react quickly with B, to form ACB. C can then disengage, leaving AB, and also leaving C itself unchanged.

One might compare catalysis to the function of a marriage broker, who quickly introduces two shy people, who might not otherwise meet each other, in a long time, if at all.

Cat

 

[marcin]

@Catastrophe Thx for the confirmation "If there is a catalyst, it must cause the reactants to interact more frequently, probably by bringing them together" The thing is, that these guys don't really care about it, they just want to get rid of time. I only hope you don't.

 

[George²]

Moreover, if there was no physical time, there would be no physical velocity

Yes seems logical. What seems logical is not always true.
Edit: publishing error in citation language.

 

[marcin]

@George² That was one of my 6 arguments including my previous comment. Do you always quote someone, changing not only the language but also the alphabet to Cyryllic, so that nobody can understand it, especially if he's right and you don't want people to know it? What a joke...

 

[George²]

No this is because not controlling my phone too good. Will make edit on my posting which contain error.

 

[marcin]

Let's say I'm willing to believe you this time. What also seems logical are special and general relativity.

 

[George²]

Let's say I'm willing to believe you this time. What also seems logical are special and general relativity.

Let me give a famous example from the past. The geocentric theory was dominant enough and had a demonstrative mathematical apparatus supporting that all celestial objects revolve around the Earth which is center of everything.

 

[marcin]

@George² Let me give you a link to the famous Relativistic Doppler Effect. EM oscillation period extends and contracts by the same factor as the wavelength, so that the photon's light speed remains constant. There is no constant light speed without the equal change in the wavelength λ and the wave period T, because c = λ/T. You need both space and time to have a constant light speed.

 

[George²]

Changes in matter happen. The universe is eternal, has no past and no future, in the sense that many people want us to be able to jump through, traveling as some imagine through the time like in physical objects or like in space between objects, or if you will through spaces, other dimensions, or parallel universes. All of this is and will remain fiction.

 

[marcin]

I don't want you to believe that the past and the future exist, not to mention the other things on your list. I want you to believe, that "your" present moment has its timespan which is not zero. To be more precise, it has an order of magnitude of the Planck scale and it's not "your" present moment, but the moment of all the elementary particles that make you.

For me, the entire spacetime on the Planck scale is 2-dimensional (t,1d) and flat, and its elementary surface is created by each interaction of elementary particles. Their distance 1d arises with the time of their interaction. Both dimensions obviously depend on the reference frame, but the surface area is the same in all of them. This surface area is actually the Lorentz transformation invariant, and spacetime interval is its square root. The scaffolding of spatial distances 1d creates spatial 3d.

The universe is eternal, has no past and no future, in the sense that many people want us to be able to jump through, traveling as some imagine through the time like in physical objects or like in space between objects, or if you will through spaces, other dimensions, or parallel universes. All of this is and will remain fiction.

The funny thing is, that this time I almost agree with you . Nothing that has a mass travels in space without the passage of its proper time and consequently, nothing massive travels in time without traversing the space. There is no time without the distance and vice versa. There is no elementary particle, which is in rest with respect to all the others, and between any pair in relative motion there is a time dilation and length contraction. There is no time dilation without length contraction and vice versa, so there is no time without the distance and vice versa. That's also the reason, why we are not moving in time with the speed of light when we are "at rest" (with respect to something in the chosen reference frame), because all the particles that create our bodies would have to be at rest with respect to all the others, and they never are, even if we were frozen in 0K in the cosmic void.

What's even more important, there is no past and the future in the Einstein field equations, that general relativity is based on. Metric tensor does not store its past values, nor does the spacetime store them, because it’s described precisely by its metric tensor, which gives us only a set of spatial rulers to measure the current distances, and a temporal one used to measure the current flow of time at each spacetime point. Einstein tensor describing the spacetime curvature consists of the Ricci tensor and the Ricci scalar. Putting aside, that the Ricci tensor is the contraction of the indices of the Riemann tensor, it consists of the Christoffel symbols (Christ-awful symbols), their products and their first derivatives. These in return consist of the product of the metric tensor and its first derivatives. The Ricci scalar is the trace of Ricci tensor. Metric tensor is a basic element of Christoffel symbols, which are the basic element of the Ricci tensor, so all the geometry is based on the metric tensor and its first and second derivatives. Its components are the dot products of the basis vectors of a local coordinate system at the chosen spacetime point. They tell us a way to measure the distance from this point in its infinitesimal proximity and the flow of time at this point.

@Harry Costas this comment is also for you.

 

[George²]

. I want you to believe, that "your" present moment has its timespan which is not zero.

You want me to believe as if this were a religion? That is too much. In my opinion, there is a change in matter that can be measured by the difference in states. There is no need to use time to describe the changed characteristics. Our memories from "a long time ago" are simply records of the manifestations, interactions, and states of matter. To the extent that we have the sensory apparatus to detect them ourselves in some quality, quantity, and resolution, and to the extent that we have the capacity to record them. Of course, with our development as part of matter, we have acquired the ability to communicate and even record a history of changes outside of our brains.

 

[marcin]

This time I was focusing on the common ground, non-existence of the past and the future, but you chose to pick on my introductory sentence, and ignore all the rest. Nice talking to you. In that case i repeat all my previous arguments.

Time is the 4th dimension that is inseparable from space and it's compressed and expanded just the same. You just need to multiply it by c to make it spatial. In fact, ct is the equivalent of space. Time expansion is time dilation - do you believe in it?

Moreover, if there was no physical time, there would be no physical velocity. You need both space and time to travel the distance in time. Nothing travels in space without the passage of time. Moreover, spacetime is one "physical object" which consist of both space and time that are inseparable in both special and general relativity. One doesn't exist without the other. Moreover, time dilation is the reciprocal of length contraction.

EM oscillation period extends and contracts by the same factor as the wavelength, so that the photon's light speed remains constant. There is no constant light speed without the equal change in the wavelength λ and the wave period T, because c = λ/T. You need both space and time to have a constant light speed.

Your time dilation is my length contraction and vice versa

Einstein triangle from the time dilation triangle

 

[George²]

I'll leave it at that, to include speakers who are better than either of us and experts who don't necessarily play by the accepted definition of things. There's a lot more I could say, but I'm tired. And it's nice when the other side tries to understand what I'm saying, rather than repeating memorized things.

 

[marcin]

Half of them are non-memorized conclusions. You want my understanding while you don't try to understand me. It doesn't work that way. Moreover, I found a common ground between us, and you totally ignored it. Nice talking to you.

I also argue with the existence of the past and the future, so I know what it's like to be on "your side". Better than you can imagine.

 

[George²]

Oh, I recognize this point of view as existing. I understand it by imitating their thought process and that it is a consensus among scientists, not necessarily all scientists. But those who do not have the consensus are rejected and stigmatized, as long as they do not somehow manage to impose their view of things and another consensus is formed. Despite the definition of consensus, it was as if there were no theories that were almost forcibly imposed in the not-so-distant past, since scientists in leading countries, academies and colleges had strong influence and support outside of science.