East Meets West Logic...

[Graybeard]

I think a single question would be very revealing if considered for a bit:

Q: What mechanism can allow for various diverse events in the universe to remain correlated in time?

Steve ...... If you could expand this a little bit ..... are you talking about the duality (wave/particle) of sub-atomic particles ??.... are you talking about entanglement ??

The question is a tiny bit tooooo broad.

If you can add a little bit ... I will try to answer with the little I know ...

cool bananas ... greg

[SteveA]

I'm simply asking how we can measure that events all over the universe occur at different rates relative to each other and light speed remains constant no matter where it's measured from.

(i.e. planets orbit together in time and do this at the same time that events thousands of light years away are progressing at a rate of time we can correlate to here and with a clock etc.)

There appears to be a very simple mechanism to do this, but it's not how things are presented by physics currently and hence why things like Higgs fields and entanglement etc. seem so strange.

Hint: Your computer manages to do this and can keep many subsystems all communicating in a synchronized manner.

[Graybeard]

I'm simply asking how we can measure that events all over the universe occur at different rates relative to each other and light speed remains constant no matter where it's measured from.

Hmmmmm ....... there are two answers that I know of ......

1 .. You must get a textbook on Special Relativity
2 .. You must get a textbook on General Relativity

I am not being a smartarse ... really ... but your question implies only a brief aquaintance with Einstein's theories.

Thirdly .... do not place too much faith (hate the word) in this measurement problem .... Einstein just adjusted the Math to suit the observation because no one could explain the observation.

Quantum Mechanics tends to ignore this problem as irrelevant .... And QM (imo) is the better road.

Also there is a simple analogy that I can PM you ..... but better than this is this simple example .... which shows quite clearly that the Universe is quite ordinary .... just the measurements are outrageous.

All you need to know to understand this is that ((base)squared + (height) squared) = (hypotenuse)squared))

CLICK


If you want a FULL understanding, leaving no stone unturned ... then PM Vacuum Mechanics ..... he will help you ... truly.

greg

[SteveA]

Let me emphasize that in the computer example, the manner in which this synchronization occurs is not typically seen as occurring in the same specific physical manner that the universe does this. The clock/temporal synchronization in a computer is generally interpreted to be a parallel communication of a common clock signal (which would be at a slower than light speed velocity).

The universe cannot actually operate in this specific manner via. communication at light speed though, nor can there fundamentally exist parallel clock sources either - that's how the mistakes arise.

The two fundamental mistakes are:

1) An inherent parallelism to the universe.

and

2) Communication limited to light speed velocities.

Once those assumptions are dropped. It becomes quite simple (and I can give the answer if you guys give up, but it's a lot better if you figure it out for yourself ) Though it's also possible that I'll get the same (and IMO, ignorant) "read a dang physics book" reply, yet I could do that and it would still not provide a clear answer and the (unnamed ) individual who made the "read a dang physics book" statement wouldn't be able to answer the question either ... unless that individual bothered to stop reading other (assumed authoritative) peoples stuff and thought about it for a little them self.

[SteveA]

Hmmmmm ....... there are two answers that I know of ......

1 .. You must get a textbook on Special Relativity
2 .. You must get a textbook on General Relativity

I am not being a smartarse ... really ... but your question implies only a brief aquaintance with Einstein's theories.

LOL!

My previous post was actually not directed toward you. It's just funny that you happened to pick the same reply. (Seriously I typed that up before I posted it and saw your reply ... but again, it's not something I would have not expected).

Thirdly .... do not place too much faith (hate the word) in this measurement problem .... Einstein just adjusted the Math to suit the observation because no one could explain the observation.

Quantum Mechanics tends to ignore this problem as irrelevant .... And QM (imo) is the better road.

There's nothing regarding any complex mathematics here. This is a simple mechanism that describes how everything in the universe can operate according to comparable units of time.

Also there is a simple analogy that I can PM you ..... but better than this is this simple example .... which shows quite clearly that the Universe is quite ordinary .... just the measurements ore outrageous.

All you need to know to understand this is that ((base)squared + (height) squared) = (hypotenuse)squared))

CLICK


If you want a FULL understanding, leaving no stone unturned ... then PM Vacuum Mechanics ..... he will help you ... truly.

greg

I'm not asking how it works - it's actually simple and I can show how, if you guys give up. I'm mostly just trying to demonstrate how people who often claim to have a lot of knowledge regarding physics can't answer something simple because that "belief system" is intolerant of reality and builds "complexification" instead of clarity in the attempt to avoid having to backtrack on lots of statements. (I understand because I've been there myself)

It's largely that the insults can get a bit repetitive and there's less need for them anymore. It would be better to actually begin putting everything together from bottom up and see how it all fits together and find all the new directions to explore ("Out with the old and in with the new" as they say)

No, I can't say that I'm certain every possible phenomenon could be explained by this mechanism, but it does appear to be a simple candidate that could fit the bill. It at least explains a basic framework that should be capable of tying everything else together.

[Graybeard]

Ummmm .... I was replying to you in an honest vein ...... if you can explain 'inherent parallelism' .... perhaps I can try .......

communication is limited to light speed ... this is correct

greg

[Graybeard]

I think we crossed posted ......

[Graybeard]

It's largely that the insults can get a bit repetitive and there's less need for them anymore.

You can always report posts ... many people do ..... I'm not the best arbitrator in the world ... but I try.

Or .... just look at it like I do ..... 'the Skipper that blows his horn the loudest is the one thats in the Fog'

and remember, sticks and stones hurt ... insults are just piss and wind .......

greg

[labelwench]

Well, Steve, here's a challenge for you, lol.....

Are you able to explain the concept you are 'teasing' the boys with in concise enough terms that there is an outside chance of myself gaining an understanding?

You are in no danger of getting any criticism from me, as I shall be occupied in the ponder thereof......

I may possibly present some challenging questions arising from any new concept that might come forth.

What are you waiting for?

The world needs new ideas......

[SteveA]

Ummmm .... I was replying to you in an honest vein ...... if you can explain 'inherent parallelism' .... perhaps I can try .......

communication is limited to light speed ... this is correct

greg

Well you can maybe derive this parallel requirement for yourself if you consider what implications light speed communication would have.

For example, if we have two photons traveling potentially anywhere through space and they maintain the same velocity, what mechanism could allow for them to move simultaneously and in parallel like this?

Relativity assumes light speed is constant and a maximum velocity for communication. If that's true, then how could two photons in space, which may potentially only exist for fractions of a second, maintain a common synchronization in time despite the fact that they can be separated by distances that are much larger than even their entire "lifespan"?

Additionally, different events that occur in different areas of the universe can be observed to share ratios of a time reference that's common between them. How can such a time reference between them exist if the photons involved were only able to communicate at light speed?

My question is rhetorical. There is no conflict - I'm simply looking to see if anyone can demonstrate a simple logical mechanism that allows this to be possible. I don't believe it can be done and still retain the parallel, light speed model of things as portrayed by Relativity (yes, we can still derive how Relativistic observations are made as secondary artifacts derived from this, but Relativity does not describe the fundamental structure of time and Relativity arises from statistical approximations only, it just figuratively measures average die rolls and doesn't explain how die can be rolled and why they don't individual roll the average).

Anyway, if you can't get it, that's fine. We can let Lloyd give it a shot. If not, I'll post how it's possible (and it's simple).