Measuring time

Some of you are aware that I have proposed a hypothetical model that allows the expansion of space-time to be truly uniform. Matter itself is allowed to expand, as opposed to the “standard” model that stops the expansion of space-time at the boundary of galaxies. (www.uniformexpansion.com)

According to the proposed uniform expansion theory, there are two fundamental ways to describe reality. One is based upon “relative” measures; the other is in terms of “absolute” measures.

In an attempt to differentiate the two, image a balloon that is expanding. All distance measures on the balloon are increasing with the expansion but all the rulers on the balloon are also expanding, relative measures remain constant.

Now if we assume the “perspective of God” which is outside the expansion, it is possible to describe the expansion of the balloon. This is because our god like perspective is “absolute” and is not expanding. This absolute frame of reference allows the description of the expansion of space-time.

One property of such a uniform expansion is that all relative measures of distance remain the same since even the rulers are also expanded with the expansion of space-time. A real test of the proposed theory is to see if all “relative” clocks also maintain their relative measures of time.

The following problems will show that various methods of measuring time will all keep in relative measure to each other, despite the uniform expansion of space-time.

The following formulas describe how the expansion of space-time is structured. These formulas are based upon “absolute” measures, or as how a fixed reference frame “outside” of the expansion would describe the expansion. All relative measures must remain the same. The T term is Absolute time, which records a point’s or object’s location historically from the moment of creation or the beginning of time. The numeration 1 and 2 are sequential demarcations. D, V, A and E correspond to Distance, Velocity, Acceleration and Energy, as measured in the “absolute” perspective as associated with a point or object in an expanding space-time field.

The Ratios of Time

D2/D1 = (T2 /T1)^(2/3) Eq III-8
V2/ V1 = (T1/T2) ^(1/3) Eq III-9
A2/A1 = (T1/T2) ^(4/3) Eq III-10
E2/ E1 = (T1/T2) ^(2/3) Eq III-11

1. The light clock. One way to measure an interval of time is to use a light clock. While the relative length of the clock is maintained, in terms of absolute measures, the length of the light clock increases with the expansion of space-time. Also, according to the Ratio of time formulas, the speed of light is decreased with the passage of Cosmic time. If the age of the universe were to be 8 times greater, according to the predictions of the Ratio of Time formulas, a specific interval of time will then take 8 times longer. (T2/T1 = 8) The length of the light clock is increased by four times and the speed of light is reduced by a half. (Those who like a little problem in algebra can check this out in your head since the cube root of 8 is easy to figure out.)

In order for all relative measures of time to be preserved, all clocks must be similarly “slowed” by the passage of time.

2. A pendulum clock. Another way to measure an interval of time is the swing of a pendulum. According to the ratio of time formulas, when the age of the universe is increased by a factor of 8, the length of the pendulum should increase by a factor of 4 and the effect of gravity (Acceleration) should be reduced by a 1/16th. The period of a pendulum changes by the square root of the ratio of the length divided by the effect of gravity (as expressed by the gravitational constant). The net result is that a pendulum now takes 8 times longer for a “second” to occur.

This is interesting; two different physical process to measure intervals of time change in exactly the right proportion to maintain relative measures of time.

3. An orbiting system. The orbital period of our planet going around our sun describes a year; Would a year also be increased by a factor of 8 when the age of the universe is increased by a factor of 8? When the ratio of times formulas are applied to an orbiting system, the distance to be transversed, in absolute terms, increases by a factor of 4 and the absolute velocity of the planet is reduced by a factor of 2. It takes 8 times longer to orbit the sun.
4. A crystal oscillator clock. Similarly a crystal clock would also take 8 times longer to describe an interval of time.
5. A molecular reaction. Atoms and electrons follow the same inverse square rule found in orbiting objects. They too would take 8 times longer to pass.

All relative measures of distance and time remain the same. It is only from the “absolute” perspective that these changes can be described.

The fact that these changes can only be described by an “absolute” reference frame does not mean the changes can not be observed. The predicted changes are historically based, if it were possible to observe objects in the past, then evidence of the changes should be observable.

For example, an orbiting pair of objects that are light years away are observed years in the past. If the objects are far enough away, they would appear to be rotating around each other in a manner that would appear to be too fast for the amount of matter assumed to be there. There relative clocks run faster. To resolve the discrepancy one would erroneously assume that there must be more matter within the system than is unobserved to maintain celestial stability. Hence, the necessity for “Dark Matter”.

Snowflake.

Well, let's see...

You take a stopwatch, calibrate it severely so it's accurate, then take another stopwatch, do the same, then active and stop both at precisely the same time after enough time has lapsed to be useful.

How fast is time?

Yep - you got it!

Precisely one second per second!!!

Ever heard of a "dimensionless quantity," before? Bottom line, it means "you can't measure time."

By the way, "perspectives of God" approach won't wash because it assumes it's outside/beyond the universe against which all measures are based.

In short, the nature of the universe itself sets the measurement criteria. You can't escape their, regardless of whether your universe is the size of a super-universe football or a planet. It's the universe itself which establishes the measurement criteria, not the supra-universe in which it might reside.

One cannot measure anything as snowflake has described. It's like either a continuously or disretely variable spring. Stretch it to twice it's length, and the interval derivative or discrete subsecttions have stretched to their respective sizes, as well. To the intra-universal observer, nothing has changed, since the algebraic relationship between the two hasn't changed, either. To the extra-univeral observer, the same holds true, since they would view the entire universe (or appropriate portion) and would themselves be able to make measurements relative to other portions of the unverse.

Personally, I believe there are certain universal "constants" which aren't as constant as we'd like to believe, that are, because of their incorrectly perceived consistancy, distorting the perceptions of universal behaviors, thereby distorting the conclusions with respect to "expanding universe" and "dark matter."

The problem is, we've only be able to verify those constants within they tiny dot of our own space-time backyard. A thousand, million, billion, or a trillion years ago they might have been significantly different due to the very nature of the interrelational aspect of the universe itself. Assuming consistancy when it cannot be proved is faulty science at best, and leads to erroneous conclusions that mislead others, at worst.

From what I heard from a few JPL friends back when I was near the business, there were a few "slight" discrepancies with respect to the expected and actual relative frequencies on which the original Voyager was to be transmitting as it left our solar system, and that if the universal constants were indeed constant, the error wouldn't have been present. The fact that there was an error at the time was, for the most part dismissed, but never fully explained. Some hinted at an unknown mass, but there were no changes in expected trajectory that would have accompanied any action by a mass.

I'm no expert in quantum mechanics, nor astrophysics, by any stretch of the imagination. What I do best is integrate seemingly incongruous disciplines to obtain optimal results.

From what I can see, there are gaps in between disciplines. I believe re-examining the Voyager data is one way to begin to solve it, but regardless, I don't believe the universal constants are as constant as we believe throughout space-time, and I believe that's what's throwing off our predictions with respect to whether the universe is expanding or contraction and at what rate, current rate of change, and long-term function of the rate of change with respect to experienced time.

Hi genebujold

You said the following

”You take a stopwatch, calibrate it severely so it's accurate, then take another stopwatch, do the same, then active and stop both at precisely the same time after enough time has lapsed to be useful.

How fast is time?

Yep - you got it!

Precisely one second per second!!!

Ever heard of a "dimensionless quantity," before? Bottom line, it means "you can't measure time." “

Now that I know you “can’t measure time” I know that I will not ever ask you what time it is.

All measures of time are based upon oscillating processes. Once one process is picked to represent an interval of time (Such as the atomic processes of a Cesium Clock), this process can be used to coordinate other oscillating processes.

Most all “dimensionless quantities” actually include time in the physical process yielding the expression but it is only because time is not relevant to the problem the dimension of time is ignored. Strain is an example of a “dimensionless quantity” (change in length/ length) and in most calculations involving stain, the time involved in which the strain is induced is not included.

You also said,
By the way, "perspectives of God" approach won't wash because it assumes it's outside/beyond the universe against which all measures are based.

This in not an accurate description of my model. The “perspective of God” approach allows the observation of relationships that are locally unobservable. The “perspective of God” in my model is really a description of reality that is historically based. By looking to the past, the relationships of the “unobserved” dimensions are revealed.

In your second posting you said.
One cannot measure anything as snowflake has described.

This is your opinion. The fact that the proposed model predicts Newton’s Laws of Gravity, predicts that the effect of gravity varies as a function of Cosmic or Absolute time, (as believed by Dirac and Gamow), negates the need for dark matter, resolves inconsistencies in cosmology and offers a physical explanation for quantum effects, indicates that it may very well be possible to measure things as I have described.

(Note Dirac and Gamow never derived a stable geometric model, I have.)


Snowflake

You're missing the point, snowflake - if one point of the spring is stretched, all points of the spring are stretched, including those which you conveniently reference your criteria.

But I do not belive the variances in our backyard are universally propogated. Therefore, I believe there are extra-milkyway variances far beyond our comprehension at this point. The problem is, the local variances induced by the intergalactic variances are less than the level of our resolution, thus we don't see them. Time will tell, however, as our experiments become ever more sophisticated and capable of measuring even the most minute differences.

Snowflakeuniverse, universal expansion is both internally describable and detectable by the spreading apart of mass. If both mass and space were expanding at the same rate as you suggest, then the density (mass / volume) of the universe would be the same now as it was in the first seconds after a Big Bang. However, since the Big-Bang-expansion model is a model of an extreme decrease in universal density, the logical inference is that mass and space are not expanding at the same rate. Logically speaking, by modus tollens (if P then Q; ~Q; therefore ~P):

1. If uniform expansion of mass & space, then uniform density over time.
2. There is not uniform density over time.
3. Ergo: there is not uniform expansion of mass & space.

While I may not understand your idea or all its details, this seems to be a clear falsification of both any uniform-expansion hypothesis and the claim that the Big Bang assumes an external "perspective of God" since its described fluctuations of mass/volume ratios can be locally measured.

__________________
Goddard's Journal

HI Genebujold

You said the following.
You're missing the point, snowflake - if one point of the spring is stretched, all points of the spring are stretched, including those which you conveniently reference your criteria.

You are right, a uniform “stretch” maintains relative measures, but from our “absolute” perspective it is possible to observe the stretching of the spring. There are two measures of realty, “absolute” and “relative” local measures are relative and all relative measures remaing the same, relative measures of distance and all relative clocks. From the absolute perspective change is observed, lengths proportionally increase and clocks slow.

It seems that we share some common ground in that you “do not believe the variances in our backyard are universally propagated” , I am providing a model that conforms to you intuition.

Snowflake

Hi Ian Goddard

You said the following
1. If uniform expansion of mass & space, then uniform density over time.

According to the proposed relationship, a volume of “absolute” space varies to the square of the measure of Cosmic or Absolute time. What this means is that from our “eye of god” perspective, if the age of the universe were to double, the volume in our “balloon of reality” will increase 4 times.

The amount of mass within the “balloon of reality” is fixed, so there is a continuous loss of density in “absolute” terms. Relative measures of reality locally determined will detect no change whatsoever, if the expansion occurs according to the “rules” presented in the “Ratio of Times” formulas. Since all relative “rulers” expand with the expansion of space-time, all proportional or relative measures of distance measured “locally” will remain the same. This positing also shows that all measures of time also remain locally the same, even though from the “eye of God” perspective, all “clocks” slow with the expansion of space-time.

In order to understand my proposed model, it is important to differentiate between relative and absolute measures. As shown in this posting, all locally observed measures of distance and time remain proportionally the same. From the absolute perspective, (the “eye of God”,) lengths are proportionally increased and time slows.

Because all local measures of distance and time are measured to be constant, these measures have been assumed by the “mainstream” to be constant, even though they are actually changing, based upon an “absolute” perspective.

Snowflake