time, is it a true dimension? I say not

[north]

Originally Posted by north
and the larger process to my thinking is Cosmic Plasmas

Could this plasma have the effect of"curving space", ie creating a lensing effect to produce redshift?

I'm not sure about creating a " lensing affect producing a redshift" but I will say this about the lensing affect.

for example, light from a star behind the Sun, in which we do not see the light from this star directly but is seen because this light is bent because of the Suns atmosphere down towards us.

now if I raise the Earth so that the north pole of the Earth is level with the north pole of the Sun, this light from the star is no longer bent but comes straight towards us at the north pole of Earth. but is still bent down to the south pole of the Earth.

now if I raise the south pole of the Earth so that is is level with the north pole of the Sun. the light from the star behind the Sun will be straight towards the south pole of the and the north pole of the Earth will also see the light moving up towards it.

so that the lensing or bending of light is because of the Suns atmosphere. and the Suns atmosphere is plasma based.

so there is NO curvature of space in and of its self but rather, what bends the light is the constiuents in that space.

perhaps but the fact is, rotation is a physical constituent of the object, measured or not.

Objects must have physical properties, or else....

I'm sure why your response to my response is put in such a way? explain

Originally Posted by brodix
Although space does contain light within the parameter of C

explain further

As the equilibrium, space is the absolute, as well as infinite.

I think C isn't so much a function of potential properties of space,

meaning that space in and of its self limits C. but not the energy/matter within space. have I got you right here?

so much as it is a limit to energy, before the pendulum starts to swing back toward matter.

it maybe

but what I think would be interesting would be the result of first colliding two light sources, (aimed exactly at each other) together, at the same frequency and different frequencies and energy. has this been done? because so far we look at light just coming towards us with no light source opposing it in the opposite direction. behind us. what is the result of light colliding with light?

[brodix]

I'm not sure about creating a " lensing affect producing a redshift" but I will say this about the lensing affect.

for example, light from a star behind the Sun, in which we do not see the light from this star directly but is seen because this light is bent because of the Suns atmosphere down towards us.
---------
so that the lensing or bending of light is because of the Suns atmosphere. and the Suns atmosphere is plasma based.

so there is NO curvature of space in and of its self but rather, what bends the light is the constiuents in that space.

Yes, it isn't that space is curved, so much as it is the interacting forces in that space. I made this point earlier today in the big bang blown discussion, but I'll repeat it. What is happening with gravity is that everything in a gravitational field is attracted towards the center, so a description is the volume of space is contracting in a gravitational field. The reason we say it as curved is because the effect on the path of something entering this field is to curve it toward the center. Now if radiation is having the opposite effect, then it is expanding space where there are no perceptible gravitational effects. Obviously this would only affect other radiation, as the gravity of any mass would overwhelm this effect. Since this effect wouldn't be drawing or pushing the light in any particular direction, it wouldn't curve its path either. The primary effect would be that the light would effectively be crossing expanding space, thus redshifting it. The reason this wouldn't cause the entire universe to expand is because gravitational wells are essentially sucking this effect and the energy manifesting it back up, therefore Omega=1. As I said in the other discussion, it's like the ocean floor expanding, but the earth doesn't because it pushes under continents.
This would explain why all other galaxies are redshifted as though they were all moving directly away from us, without making us the center of the universe, or claiming it is space itself that is expanding.

I'm sure why your response to my response is put in such a way? explain

Simply that mass has various properties in order to exist in the first place. Definition is limitation and vice versa.

meaning that space in and of its self limits C. but not the energy/matter within space. have I got you right here?

That I can't give a really clear answer to, but by "I think C isn't so much a function of potential properties of space," I was just thinking C might be set by parameters of the properties of energy, rather then by space. As you said earlier, " what bends the light is the constiuents in that space." Maybe it's the constituents that set C, as well.

but what I think would be interesting would be the result of first colliding two light sources, (aimed exactly at each other) together, at the same frequency and different frequencies and energy. has this been done? because so far we look at light just coming towards us with no light source opposing it in the opposite direction. behind us. what is the result of light colliding with light?

This is what I'm saying causes the redshifting of light, but given the distances involved and that the earth's gravitational field would overwhelm earthbound tests, it might be hard to measure. It is a matter of interpreting what is causing inter-galactic redshift. As I pointed out, the Big Bang Theory, by positing that space itself is expanding, to explain why we appear at the center, is contradicting its own logic. I think the idea I putting forth isn't self-contradictory and explains the observed phenomena, but there may be better explanations.

[Fortis]

I'm putting space as first order basis for motion. Motion as second order and properties of motion, such as temperature, third order. My argument for why I think time qualifies as a property of motion and not the basis for it, starts with my first post in this discussion, 434, on page 15 and continues from there.

It seems odd that you would consider motion to be a second order basis for motion, if that is what you mean in the above.

[brodix]

I'm putting space as first order basis
Motion as second order
and properties of motion, such as temperature, third order.

[north]

but what I think would be interesting would be the result of first colliding two light sources, (aimed exactly at each other) together, at the same frequency and different frequencies and energy. has this been done? because so far we look at light just coming towards us with no light source opposing it in the opposite direction. behind us. what is the result of light colliding with light?

This is what I'm saying causes the redshifting of light, but given the distances involved and that the earth's gravitational field would overwhelm earthbound tests, it might be hard to measure. It is a matter of interpreting what is causing inter-galactic redshift. As I pointed out, the Big Bang Theory, by positing that space itself is expanding, to explain why we appear at the center, is contradicting its own logic. I think the idea I putting forth isn't self-contradictory and explains the observed phenomena, but there may be better explanations.

what though, if you did, as an experiment, two lasers>same frequency, of low energy light, with exactly the same diameter of focus, and shone both at each other,exactly parallel,directly. I wonder what the result would be?

and exactly the same experiment but with different frequencies, one laser being a different frequency to the other?

[north]

time, the concept of time, is really about the Human minds desire to order the Universe and its movements. so that we can understand what this movement means to us and to the Nature of the object(s) involved.

the essence of time is and will always be movement. without movement there is no past>present>future.

to be a true dimension means that this or these dimension(s) are essential for simply existence of the thing in the first place.

time is not essential. time is still a measurement of any movement. time is a fourth dimension entirely created by Human mind because of observations, farmers when to plant, when not to,Seasons, and the thinking upon these observations.

time is essentially a beings, any being in this Universe, construct. to order movement nothing more nothing less.

[brodix]

what though, if you did, as an experiment, two lasers>same frequency, of low energy light, with exactly the same diameter of focus, and shone both at each other,exactly parallel,directly. I wonder what the result would be?

and exactly the same experiment but with different frequencies, one laser being a different frequency to the other?

I'm not sure what would happen with lasers. Would the photons hit, pile up, etc.

The situation with space is about crossing waves, which is what redshift is. Mostly they would just pass through one another, but the reality is of waves from all directions, of all frequencies, passing through every point in space.

Think about waves in water. If you drop two stones at the same time, their ripples pass through one another, but if you constantly jiggle a cup of water, every so often many waves pile up at once and splash over the edge. The same with rogue waves forming at sea. The idea is that these light waves crossing space, due to the continuity of the turbulance, would always be at this elevated state and create the impression that any particular wave of light is crossing expanding space.

[brodix]

time, the concept of time, is really about the Human minds desire to order the Universe and its movements. so that we can understand what this movement means to us and to the Nature of the object(s) involved.

the essence of time is and will always be movement. without movement there is no past>present>future.

to be a true dimension means that this or these dimension(s) are essential for simply existence of the thing in the first place.

time is not essential. time is still a measurement of any movement. time is a fourth dimension entirely created by Human mind because of observations, farmers when to plant, when not to,Seasons, and the thinking upon these observations.

time is essentially a beings, any being in this Universe, construct. to order movement nothing more nothing less.

I would argue it's a property of the motion, like temperature, not just the observation of the motion. Obviously, without the conscious mind to perceive it, it's just motion, but the consequences of the mass activity exist, even if there is no mind to measure and formulate models of them.

[Fortis]

I'm not sure about creating a " lensing affect producing a redshift" but I will say this about the lensing affect.

for example, light from a star behind the Sun, in which we do not see the light from this star directly but is seen because this light is bent because of the Suns atmosphere down towards us

Don't you find it strange that the amount of bending (not just that the light bends) is as predicted by GR, which has no notion of the solar atmosphere?

[north]

Originally Posted by north
what though, if you did, as an experiment, two lasers>same frequency, of low energy light, with exactly the same diameter of focus, and shone both at each other,exactly parallel,directly. I wonder what the result would be?

and exactly the same experiment but with different frequencies, one laser being a different frequency to the other?

I'm not sure what would happen with lasers. Would the photons hit, pile up, etc.

niether do I but it would fascinating to find out what would happen though!!

The situation with space is about crossing waves, which is what redshift is. Mostly they would just pass through one another, but the reality is of waves from all directions, of all frequencies, passing through every point in space.

interesting, make up a light experiment that does just this!

Think about waves in water. If you drop two stones at the same time, their ripples pass through one another, but if you constantly jiggle a cup of water, every so often many waves pile up at once and splash over the edge. The same with rogue waves forming at sea. The idea is that these light waves crossing space, due to the continuity of the turbulance, would always be at this elevated state and create the impression that any particular wave of light is crossing expanding space.

fascinating, follow that with an experiment(above).

[north]

Originally Posted by north
time, the concept of time, is really about the Human minds desire to order the Universe and its movements. so that we can understand what this movement means to us and to the Nature of the object(s) involved.

the essence of time is and will always be movement. without movement there is no past>present>future.

to be a true dimension means that this or these dimension(s) are essential for simply existence of the thing in the first place.

time is not essential. time is still a measurement of any movement. time is a fourth dimension entirely created by Human mind because of observations, farmers when to plant, when not to,Seasons, and the thinking upon these observations.

time is essentially a beings, any being in this Universe, construct. to order movement nothing more nothing less.

I would argue it's a property of the motion, like temperature, not just the observation of the motion.

I however disagree, time has been abstracted from observation to a mathematical abstraction. brain/mind construct.

Obviously, without the conscious mind to perceive it, it's just motion,

exactly.

but the consequences of the mass activity exist, even if there is no mind to measure and formulate models of them.

and the consequences of mass and/or energy activity Naturally allows a thinking person to see time as "apart" of the overall picture of the Universe. but time was originally meant to order what was essentially already happening without time being involved at all.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
I'm not sure about creating a " lensing affect producing a redshift" but I will say this about the lensing affect.

for example, light from a star behind the Sun, in which we do not see the light from this star directly but is seen because this light is bent because of the Suns atmosphere down towards us

Don't you find it strange that the amount of bending (not just that the light bends) is as predicted by GR, which has no notion of the solar atmosphere?

sort of but it was a matter of interpretation of what the observations told Einstein. as well as Eddington, when he went to Africa, if I remember right South Africa, and viewed an eclipse. and verfied Einsteins' predictions. it was a matter of interpretation and the thinking of the time. now we know different. the Sun's atmosphere was simply not considered. the Sun's atmosphere affects on light is analoglystic to the affects water has on light.

[Meta]

Here is what all of rigorous Science uses as a definition of time:

"We shall assume without examination the unidirectional, one-valued, one-dimensional character of the time continuum."

Reciprocal Systems http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/ce/timenat.htm

Assuming without examination is not very scientific.

Meta

[Fortis]

sort of but it was a matter of interpretation of what the observations told Einstein. as well as Eddington, when he went to Africa, if I remember right South Africa, and viewed an eclipse. and verfied Einsteins' predictions. it was a matter of interpretation and the thinking of the time. now we know different. the Sun's atmosphere was simply not considered. the Sun's atmosphere affects on light is analoglystic to the affects water has on light.

Eddington was the first to attempt this, but the verification of the GR prediction of the bending of light by the sun has been carried out to higher degrees of precision since then.

It is not just a matter of interpretation. GR predicted that the light would bend through a specific angle (not just that it would bend.) Measurements of the angle of deviation agree with this prediction. If you are correct, and GR is wrong, then was it just a wild coincidence that there was quantitative agreement between GR and observation?

[brodix]

niether do I but it would fascinating to find out what would happen though!!

interesting, make up a light experiment that does just this!

fascinating, follow that with an experiment(above).

I'm not in research and given the fairly minor levels required over the course of many lightyears, it would be difficult. Now of course we could use the light from other galaxies and see if it is redshifted and this shift compounds over distance, since the further light travels, the more curved/expanded space it passes through... Oh. That's right, they've done that and developed a theory of the universe starting at a point, flashing out to many times its visible size in a micro-second, immediately slowing to some lesser approximation of its current rate and then picking up speed! Hmmm. I'm not sure how to set up a test, when some additional effect or energy will naturally be postulated to maintain the current theory is the only possible solution.

[brodix]

I however disagree, time has been abstracted from observation to a mathematical abstraction. brain/mind construct.

exactly.

and the consequences of mass and/or energy activity Naturally allows a thinking person to see time as "apart" of the overall picture of the Universe. but time was originally meant to order what was essentially already happening without time being involved at all.

Time is the physical process, not an abstract dimension.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
sort of but it was a matter of interpretation of what the observations told Einstein. as well as Eddington, when he went to Africa, if I remember right South Africa, and viewed an eclipse. and verfied Einsteins' predictions. it was a matter of interpretation and the thinking of the time. now we know different. the Sun's atmosphere was simply not considered. the Sun's atmosphere affects on light is analoglystic to the affects water has on light.

Eddington was the first to attempt this, but the verification of the GR prediction of the bending of light by the sun has been carried out to higher degrees of precision since then.

sure and all have to do with the light bending within the atmosphere of the Sun.

It is not just a matter of interpretation. GR predicted that the light would bend through a specific angle (not just that it would bend.) Measurements of the angle of deviation agree with this prediction. If you are correct, and GR is wrong, then was it just a wild coincidence that there was quantitative agreement between GR and observation?

and the closer to the Sun's atmosphere the light is, the sharper the angle of deviation is. the thicker the atmosphere the sharper the deviation.

was it a wild conincidence? no. Einstein just thought in terms of space and time as having some sort of substance to them. so they can become distorted by gravity. but in actual fact neither space nor time has an actual physical property in and of themselves.

but if we think of the angle of deviation by the Sun as because of the atmosphere of the Sun you would get the same results as if looking at it from the GR perspective. because in reality that is what is happening.

as so often the case, space and time are assigned properties as a given, without actual proof that indeed both space and time have physical properties in and of themselves. it happens all the time!!

[north]

Originally Posted by north
I however disagree, time has been abstracted from observation to a mathematical abstraction. brain/mind construct.

exactly.

and the consequences of mass and/or energy activity Naturally allows a thinking person to see time as "apart" of the overall picture of the Universe. but time was originally meant to order what was essentially already happening without time being involved at all.

Time is the physical process, not an abstract dimension.

exactly

time is the analysis of the physical process by us or any other being as a way to understand the physical process of the Universe, initially.

we as beings, in the begining, of our evolution, Naturally ordered our enviroment to enhance survival, based on the physical processes of our world and astronomical(moon).

now fast forward to the present. we have abstracted these observations of the physical processes, when does the moon become full,half,quarter etc. how do these affect Hunting, growing seasons, into a real and significant dimension called time. when in reality time plays no part.

essentially again, time is nothing more than the measurement of movement. the order of movement. and is not a dimension essential for existence or the movement of any object.

but time can be used as a tool to understand and order the Universe by a being. but has NO fundamental value to the non-living substance of the Universe its self. micro and macro.

[Fortis]

and the closer to the Sun's atmosphere the light is, the sharper the angle of deviation is. the thicker the atmosphere the sharper the deviation.

was it a wild conincidence? no. Einstein just thought in terms of space and time as having some sort of substance to them. so they can become distorted by gravity. but in actual fact neither space nor time has an actual physical property in and of themselves.

But Einstein didn't just say that there was bending. He predicted how much bending there would be, and guess what? It quantitatively matched the observations made after his prediction. Why if he didn't acount for the solar atmosphere?

[gravitino]

Time is not a physical dimension. Einstein found an elegant way to link it to the 3 D physical space.
Furthermore, we acn't go backward on time axis, unlike the 3 D.

[Fortis]

Time is not a physical dimension. Einstein found an elegant way to link it to the 3 D physical space.
Furthermore, we acn't go backward on time axis, unlike the 3 D.

What do you mean by "physical dimension"?

[Grand_Lunar]

I think he means a dimension that is like the normal 3 we move freely about.

Techinically, he's right, it's not physical.
It's temporal. Time is a dimension with a "built-in arrow". We only normally move in one direction in it.

[gravitino]

I think he means a dimension that is like the normal 3 we move freely about.

Techinically, he's right, it's not physical.
It's temporal. Time is a dimension with a "built-in arrow". We only normally move in one direction in it.

Exactly.
Time is an abstract or math dimension, not a physical true dimension.
Likewise, Schroedinger wave function. It's a complex ( math ) wave, not a true physical wave.