Types Of Clocks Which Have Actually Measured Time Dilation

[exchemist]

I am delighted to see AFP and SP are now conversing on this thread. They seem to be a perfect match regarding their breadth of interests and debating styles. I am sure the discussion will be greatly to the satisfaction of both parties.

Edited June 1, 2017 by exchemist

[exchemist]

Looks like this thread has gone down the rabbit hole. It is being moved to Strange Claims due to low information content. If there are interesting sub-topics, please re-raise them in a new thread.

 

 

Amateurs built the Ark; Professionals built the Titanic, :phones:

Buffy

Thanks Buffy. 

[Super Polymath]

So much dilation that we wouldn't even be able to easily tell if the formations on a larger scale are actually just formations on our own smaller scale. Think about that notion for a bit!

 

Remember:

 

 

 

There is only a limit to the division within this space time scale. The quantum matter that flows as streams of particles too small to exist on this scale. They have to combine to fit in or flow back through non-euclidian space as is. The quantum data is both infinite and finite, in that there are limits to the variables, but not limit to their reemergence

 

In an infinite, static, & steady-state universe, even aggregates aggregate, & they do so endlessly. Nothing's really made out of anything because you never actually get to the bottom of what we're made out of. That's why it's non-materialism. 

 

 

https://media.tenor.com/images/3666ad389036f42edee910d1427210e9/tenor.gif

 

This theory can actually be tested mathematically with observational evidence using the time-frame from the CMB blob to the current observable universe. Then you take the speed of light ( C ) to the power of the speed of light (C^C) & you rescale time (13 billion years converted into a rescaled cosmological time-frame) using C^C.

 

We then use this descaled speed of light in our simulation of expansion from the CMB to the time when the last black holes evaporate according to this model's adjusted rate of expansion (several googol years on our scale) after finding the point of the atom in which the nucleus & the electron ring of the atom replace each other using a specialized distance formula based on the area of that atom. Issue is we can't actually see that many frames to see the nucleus of an atom move at the rate in which it would be moving, or account for that many interactions to prove if theorem holds true or false using many different kinds of atoms to find your average which should follow with an adjusted approximation of this model. I'm sure there's a way, but it would probably involve nano or femto-tech, way more algorithmic data than we possess, & artificial black holes (not micro-black holes) up close & personal just as you would if you were looking for gravitons, an evaporating black hole is like a magnifying glass that allows you to see atoms in a way you would otherwise be unable to see.

 

​When you can get an atom that follows our cosmic expansion cycle exactly, as opposed to an adjusted approximated average of atoms in general, you'll know that it has a humanity within it. Which is more in the realm of sub-Planck tech that I was referring to earlier. 

Edited June 2, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Turtle]

The Universe Isn't a Fractal @ Space.com

 

...

The universe is fractal-like out to many distance scales, but at a certain point, the mathematical form breaks down. There are no more Russian nesting dolls — i.e., clumps of matter containing smaller clumps of matter — larger than 350 million light-years across.

The finding comes from Morag Scrimgeour at the International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research (ICRAR) at the University of Western Australia in Perth and her colleagues. Using the Anglo-Australian Telescope, the researchers pinpointed the locations of 200,000 galaxies filling a cubic volume 3 billion light-years on a side. The survey, called the WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey, probed the structure of the universe at larger scales than any survey before it.

 

The researchers found that matter is distributed extremely evenly throughout the universe on extremely large distance scales, with little sign of fractal-like patterns.

...

[Super Polymath]

The Universe Isn't a Fractal @ Space.com

 

Funny how at same the scales that the fractal pattern smooths out relativity is also having to adjust (the rate at which galaxies fly apart far exceeds the speed of light). Too bad we can't see any further out, to see if - as relativity fully adjusts - the fractal patterns reemerge. 

Edited June 1, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Turtle]

Funny how at same the scales that the fractal pattern smooths out relativity is also having to adjust (the rate at which galaxies fly apart far exceeds the speed of light). Too bad we can't see any further out, to see if - as relativity fully adjusts - the fractal patterns reemerge. 

What part of 'not fractal' do you not understand? :rolleyes:

[Turtle]

A picture of a fractal is made out of square pixels on a computer screen, you can't just use that as evidence that the picture of a fractal isn't the picture of a fractal. 

This is the part where you draw folks' ire for douchebaggery. The question of whether the Universe is fractal is a valid and interesting question, however it has been studied by experts and the answer is no. Read the frickin' article, follow up on its sources and learn something. Moreover, stop with the continuing inane speculations in the face of contrary evidence.

[Super Polymath]

This is the part where you draw folks' ire for douchebaggery. The question of whether the Universe is fractal is a valid and interesting question, however it has been studied by experts and the answer is no. Read the frickin' article, follow up on its sources and learn something. Moreover, stop with the continuing inane speculations in the face of contrary evidence.

You can't generalize the universe based only on the particle horizon. What if we zoom out to a picture of a trillion particle horizons & the collection & grouping of matter turns out to be heterogeneous just like the atomic world?

 

If the galactic superclusters in the WiggleZ are apart of many rings, discs, or spherical spirals orbiting heterogeneous structures like the CMB blob of the early universe, than the fractal pattern is still consistent. In fact, WiggleZ only measured 3 out of the 13 billion light years of galaxies within our particle horizon, which makes up far less than what the CMB became. 

Edited June 1, 2017 by Super Polymath

[AmishFighterPilot]

I am delighted to see AFP and SP are now conversing on this thread. They seem to be a perfect match regarding their breadth of interests and debating styles. I am sure the discussion will be greatly to the satisfaction of both parties.

You still keep coming here. If we're so pathetic, you must be doubly so to come here and waste your oh-so-precious expert time.

[Super Polymath]

[Buffy]

You can't generalize the universe based only on the particle horizon. What if we zoom out to a picture of a trillion particle horizons & the collection & grouping of matter turns out to be heterogeneous just like the atomic world?

 

If the galactic superclusters in the WiggleZ are apart of many rings, discs, or spherical spirals orbiting heterogeneous structures like the CMB blob of the early universe, than the fractal pattern is still consistent. In fact, WiggleZ only measured 3 out of the 13 billion light years of galaxies within our particle horizon, which makes up far less than what the CMB became. 

 

This is basically an "it's turtles all the way down!" answer, which is why you're being ridiculed for it. It might be useful to read the link you were directed to if need be and address the quoted excerpt, which basically answers your question. Would you like to try to do that?

 

Just to clarify, the Strange/Silly Claims forums are not at all designed to be "safe spaces." The Alternate Theories forum is there for discussions that manage to retain discussion where those "alternate" theories are actually backed by the proponents. If they don't, then they migrate to Strange and, worse, Silly claims where we keep them around mostly as sort of a rogue's gallery of failure to practice actual science, and folks are free to give them the ridicule they may deserve.

 

We feel that examples of "bad science" can be as instructive as examples of the "good" but it's important that the bad examples don't get mistaken for good.

 

So if you don't want your posts attacked, it's a really good idea to address all the objections if you're going to keep promoting them, even if they've been branded as strange or silly.

 

 

Vincent had ten major ideas every week: three brilliant, five good, and two ridiculous, :phones:

Buffy

[Super Polymath]

This is basically an "it's turtles all the way down!" answer, which is why you're being ridiculed for it. It might be useful to read the link you were directed to if need be and address the quoted excerpt, which basically answers your question. Would you like to try to do that?

 

Just to clarify, the Strange/Silly Claims forums are not at all designed to be "safe spaces." The Alternate Theories forum is there for discussions that manage to retain discussion where those "alternate" theories are actually backed by the proponents. If they don't, then they migrate to Strange and, worse, Silly claims where we keep them around mostly as sort of a rogue's gallery of failure to practice actual science, and folks are free to give them the ridicule they may deserve.

 

We feel that examples of "bad science" can be as instructive as examples of the "good" but it's important that the bad examples don't get mistaken for good.

 

So if you don't want your posts attacked, it's a really good idea to address all the objections if you're going to keep promoting them, even if they've been branded as strange or silly.

 

 

Vincent had ten major ideas every week: three brilliant, five good, and two ridiculous, :phones:

Buffy

What do mean by "turtles all the way down"? Please clarify. I didn't have a question, moreover I addressed everything in that article, did I not? I even went into the video of that article to obtain information it did not possess - about how the WiggleZ only covers 3 of the 13 billion light years of our particle horizon (which itself covers

) & I've cited credible proponents for this model, & I'll gladly do it again. "Gianluca Calcagni Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute), Am M¨uhlenberg 1, D-14476 Golm, Germany"

 

To quote the good stuff from that PDF

 

"Compelling arguments of fractal geometry require an extension of the fractional action measure to complex order. In doing so, we obtain a hierarchy of scales characterizing different geometric regimes. At very small scales, discrete symmetries emerge and the notion of a continuous spacetime begins to blur, until one reaches a fundamental scale and an ultra-microscopic fractal structure. This fine hierarchy of geometries has implications for non-commutative theories and discrete quantum gravity. In the latter case, the present model can be viewed as a top-down realization of a quantum-discrete to classical-continuum transition. Keywords: Models of Quantum Gravity, Field Theories in Low

 

Doubly special relativity Fractional theories are not the first models sporting a non-linear modification of Lorentz transformations. If the Planck length is a fundamental building block of a theory of quantum gravitation, one may wonder what its significance is in the context of special relativity: If it is a minimal length smearing spacetime, should not different inertial observers measure the same value ℓPl? To do so, they should agree on an invariant energy/length scale, but ordinary Lorentz transformations act on any length-type quantity. With quantum gravity in mind, one can then try to modify Lorentz transformations so that the Planck length be observer independent. It turns out that the new transformation rules are non-linear in the spacetime coordinates and they are parametrized by two invariants: the speed of light and ℓPl. Frameworks implementing the principle of Planck-length invariance are collectively called doubly special relativity (DSR) [191]–[198]."

 

In English, I've tried to described those concepts, a lot better than that article does. If going above & beyond is bad science, Einstein must have been a really bad man. 

Edited June 2, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Turtle]

...I addressed everything in that article, lol. & I've cited credible proponents for this model, & I'll gladly do it again. "Gianluca Calcagni Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute), Am M¨uhlenberg 1, D-14476 Golm, Germany"

 

To quote the good stuff from that PDF

 

"Compelling arguments of fractal geometry require an extension of the fractional action measure to complex order. In doing so, we obtain a hierarchy of scales characterizing different geometric regimes. At very small scales, discrete symmetries emerge and the notion of a continuous spacetime begins to blur, until one reaches a fundamental scale and an ultra-microscopic fractal structure. This fine hierarchy of geometries has implications for non-commutative theories and discrete quantum gravity. In the latter case, the present model can be viewed as a top-down realization of a quantum-discrete to classical-continuum transition. Keywords: Models of Quantum Gravity, Field Theories in Low

 

...

Quoting from that paper:

6.2 Open issues

6.2.1 Fractal regime

Fractional operators capture many features of fractals, but not all. In particular, they are

not complete mathematical realizations of fractals and of diffusion on fractals. The features

of a genuinely fractal background in the ultra-microscopic regime symbolized by eq. (6.2f)

would eventually deviate from those predicted in the continuum fractional approximation. ...

So fractional operators are not fractals. While the Universe may have features at some-or-other scale that are fractal or fractal-like, that is not the same as the Universe being a fractal. If you were as smart as you would have us believe, you would be publishing in journals and not on a science forum.

Edited June 2, 2017 by Turtle

[Super Polymath]

Quoting from that paper:

 

So fractional operators are not fractals. While the Universe may have features at some-or-other scale that are fractal or fractal-like, 

I think you misunderstood why I used the Mandelbrot set zoom in to help AFP visualize endless relativistic rescaling. 

[Turtle]

:blahblahblah:

[exchemist]

You still keep coming here. If we're so pathetic, you must be doubly so to come here and waste your oh-so-precious expert time.

Not really, it only takes an instant to see if anything interesting has been said. I did say I'd keep an eye out for any interesting bits of science that might pop up. I'm not a great expert, but I do, like a few people here, have a degree in physical science. That is what interests me, and all kinds of threads can lead to new things I can read about. Your ruminations about time, for instance, were interesting at the start of the thread and you may recall I defended you.  Unfortunately, there were then several fusillades of ballocks, after which I rather lost interest in discussing things with you.

 

If you ever want to talk about science, I'm your man (or one of them). If you want to exchange fusillades of ballocks, then Super Polymath is your natural interlocutor. 

[Super Polymath]

degree in physical science