Relativity for the common man, or why the "Big Bang" is bunk.

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by CanadaGlass, Nov 9, 2013.

  1. CanadaGlass

    CanadaGlass New Member

    If you say something is moving, you accidentally define a stationary. No such thing as "stationary" on a universal scale. You can only speak of "relative" motion between objects, or between an object and an arbitrary stationary. The "speed of light" had been measured and/or calculated by many people over the years preceding Einstein. Strange thing was, it seemed to be a constant. Traveling towards the light source yielded the same result as traveling away from it. Newtonian mechanics still works, as long as adjustments are made anytime something nears the speed of light. If something were traveling at the speed of light, the spatial dimension aligned with the direction of it's travel compresses infinitely, time slows to a stop, and mass increases to infinite. However, these effects are only for a reference frame that perceives the object as moving at the speed of light. If one were to use a reference frame that sees the object as stationary, these effects are not seen. Therin lies the rub. Let's look at just two reference frames. Let's call them A and B. Stationary in A is 90% of the speed of light for B. Stationary for B is seen as moving at 90% of the speed of light for A. Both see the other as slowing in time, with space compressing and mass increasing, but neither experience the effects firsthand. No universal reference frame, and no way of comparing the two. Which clock is further ahead, one stationary in reference frame A, or one stationary in B? The comparison can't be answered without sticking to one reference frame or the other, and they yield different results. However, make space 4 dimensional instead of 3+1, and it becomes simple. One reference frames "time" is another frames "space". Any attempt to plot the history of the universe becomes an excercise in futility. Try mapping a sphere using only two dimensions. The cross-section is a circle. Now extrapolate in the ignored dimension, and you will find that circle getting smaller at an exponential rate, to the point where it sucks into nothing at faster than the speed of light. Remind you of anything?

    While the universal constant is a straight up ratio of space to time, space is still thought of as 3+1 instead of 4 dimensional by most who study it. Time is singled out as being unique amongst the dimensions, in that it has an inherent directionality. I would argue this observable "flow" to time is not due to it's uniqueness as a dimension, but is more akin to traveling waves. The simplest interpretation of the math would be to see c (the "universal constant") as a ratio of equivalence rather than as a speed. Think in terms of fixed motion in four dimensional space. Now call that fixed motion "stationary" with 3+1 dimensions.

    Elementary point-particles continue to exist over time. If 1 second is 186000 miles, that makes for some mighty long particles. A very simple way to reconcile wave/particle duality, if you ask me.

    Analogies fall apart under scrutiny. They are used to get an idea across, not as a supporting argument. The things being related are not the same. With that caveat out of the way, ...

    A traveling wave propagates at a given speed. In the case of on a string, the critical factors are the mass of a given length segment of the string, and the tension. All other factors, like amplitude, frequency and length of the string are moot. Likewise with sound, the critical factors are the carrier medium and the temperature. This is meant to establish the idea of a fixed speed. No faster, and no slower.

    Picture many "somethings", all with the same fixed speed, all going in the exact same direction. Relative to each other, there is no motion. They are all "stationary". Now steer one ever so slightly. The direction it is already going is not a possible choice, is it? that does not mean it is not a direction in the first place. Whatever direction it veers, it now has relative motion between it and the rest of the "somethings". They are all going the same basic direction, but the slight divergence of the paths is what can be seen as motion. We see three dimensions we can move in, and time is the one that doesn't qualify as a direction, since it is the one direction we are already going.

    We are at a fixed speed. Every second is 186000 miles. Of course, "speed" is defined as distance over time, so you will have to bear with me as I use the word loosely. Space is four dimensional, time being the direction of our travel, or "stationary".

    A speed is a ratio, but not all ratios are speeds. Thinking of it as a speed gets the numbers right, but conceptually it misses the point.

    There are an infinite number of possible reference frames. Of these, there is only one reference frame that sees a given object as stationary. The subset that would see it as moving at the speed of light is still infinite in number. Any one of these will do. Our clocks would not be ticking from those perspectives, and we are infinitely thin in our direction of travel, along with that entire dimension. This makes sense if you think in terms of fixed motion (186000 miles:1 second) in 4 dimensional space, where the direction of travel is seen as time. Time as a dimension becomes infinitely thin. If all reference frames are equally valid, then we are spatially compressed in our direction of travel from any viewpoint that would see us as moving at the speed of light. We don't see time as a spatial dimension (it IS infinitely compressed). We see ourselves as stationary, and time isn't stopped for us, but it is if we are seen as moving at c...
    Fabian likes this.

  2. professor

    professor Active Member

    The only big bang that I know for sure which really happened, was when I was going down the 1/8th mile and the engine sounded strange for a moment then went "Bang".
    That Big Bang event did not result in the motor improving itself.
  3. Fabian

    Fabian Well-Known Member

    Now this is a really great thread and a terrifically good read.

    Interestingly "God" as described by the bible not only lists an entity that operates outside of our 3 dimensional world but outside the concept of "time" as it is perceived throughout our daily lives. God is described as operating outside of perceived time, hence the ability to see "the beginning" and "the end", which is a wild concept and runs in parallel with the description of 4th dimension physics.

    In no way am i religious, but the below quote is interesting. Does it imply that at some point the third dimension will cease to exist; replaced by the 4th dimension, because the concept of "eternity" does not include "time" as we know it:

    I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
    professor likes this.
  4. bluegoatwoods

    bluegoatwoods Well-Known Member

    Interesting thought, fabian.

    But as far as the OPs post; it is a good read. My teeny tiny brain is incapable of digesting everything in there in one sitting. I'm going to need to come back when I have a bit more time to ponder it paragraph by paragraph.

    But I can see, CanadaGlass, that you're pondering some things that I've pondered over the years. For instance, the very notion that 'Nothing can go faster than the speed of light" would seem to contradict one of the basic assumptions of relativity. i.e.; that there is no such thing as 'absolute motion'.

    I've been in arguments with people where my assertion was, 'it's entirely conceivable that there are objects in the Universe moving at some greater speed than light relative to us. What Einstein really said was that there is no way for us to perceive such objects. Not that they can't be moving that fast relative to us. (That bit about 'relative to us' is a caveat that must be used in a relativistic universe. I get a small kick out of the fact that those who insist that nothing can go faster than light don't understand it's importance.)

    I gave up on such arguments years ago. It's just not worth it.

    I'll come back when I've got some time and see if I have other comments.
  5. CanadaGlass

    CanadaGlass New Member

    Two lines can't be out of alignment by more than 90 degrees. 100 degrees out of alignment is only 80 degrees from the other side...
    Likewise, c is the greatest relative speed possible between objects.
    Since I am working with an analogy here, let's stretch it a bit. Those lines at 90 degrees to one another? They have directionality, so one might want to argue you can exceed the 90 degree out-of-alignment limit. That is where I start talking about anti-matter, and entropy reversal, with a relative motion of <c.
  6. jaguar

    jaguar Well-Known Member

    Is there a practical side to this argument? Or is this just about thinking just for the sake of thinking?
    I have accepted that there are many things we will never know, and some that are waiting for humans to discover in the near future.
  7. Fabian

    Fabian Well-Known Member

    I should have made myself more clear with respect to my post: if an all powerful entity can operate outside of time, it would seem plausible that it doesn't need a starting point, such as the "big bang" concept. That aside there are some fundamental problems with the "Big Bang" theory, which is more akin to religious philosophy but one that scientists can accept, even though it violates the law of conservation of mass & energy i.e. creating something out of nothing. Secondly there are all sorts of problems with the smoothness of the universe, which the Hubble Space Telescope is proving time and time again "not to be smooth" , which violates the concept of something infinitely hot, radiating energy without constraints; expanding radially "and smoothly" and distributing matter evenly throughout the universe.

    Another problem is the incompatibility of the postulated age of the Big Bang universe versus observations and it doesn't end there.

    The electric model of the universe seems far more sensible on an operational scale.
  8. CanadaGlass

    CanadaGlass New Member

    Define "practical". Thinking isn't impractical or anything...

    As far as any talk of god/God goes, I am a proponent of the idea of collective consciousness. We are multi-celled organisms, and we are also part of a living planet.
  9. Fabian

    Fabian Well-Known Member

    I need to reiterate that i am "not" in any way religious - glad to get that out of the way.

    I will also add that the concept of collective consciousness has intrigued me for a very long time: the notion that we are somehow mentally interlinked outside of verbal or visual communication seems impossible, but there is one experiment that everyone can try:

    Next time you are driving down a multi-lane freeway, slowly draw your car alongside another vehicle, but sit back in the blind spot, then look over at the other car driver and concentrate at getting that driver to turn around.
    It will be of surprise at how many people turn around when having no reason to turn around.
    I don't understand how it works and i want someone to give me an explanation as to why it works.
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2013
  10. grinningremlin

    grinningremlin Active Member

    As with many "theories", it's good "thought porn" but as such, no one is going to do anything with it, other than w.a.n.k.It seems similar to ants pondering the ocean.Overall, nothing time with a musical instrument can't better.
  11. jaguar

    jaguar Well-Known Member

    tell me one good practical use from the knowledge of the beginning of the universe.
    If the universe goes through expansion/contraction cycles of 50 billion years then that cycle is way too long to be of any use to us. Unless you think the human race will last indefinitely. Even then, how could we prepare for the contraction of everything into one giant fireball? we cant. thats my point
  12. CanadaGlass

    CanadaGlass New Member

    Fair enough, but first you show me one place where I suggest such a thing. I was arguing against such a scenario, and I point out the futility of trying to plot a history to the universe. I am not suggesting I have a plan, and there isn't a point to my pontificating here, but it sure looks like you didn't bother reading what I wrote. Nothing wrong with that, but your derision is unfounded.

    There are lots of things to point to that wouldn't exist without an understanding of relativity, though admittedly not all of them are necessarily good. From GPS to nuclear reactions, it's hard to know where to start...