Gnomelord

I always thought the Big Bang was a fairly useless explanation in and of itself.

What happened to brane theory? or other more probable ones?

Bob K

Bnonn: An operational definition is a definition in which a term/phrase is defined by the description/observation/measurement of real people/things/events relevant to the term/phrase being defined.

Children create operational defintions when they use structured sentences such as Love [term being defined] is when someone says they like you and they do nice things for you and with you [description/observation/measurement of people/things/events relevant to the term being defined].

Operational Definition of Time: Time is when people/machines use time-intervals to measure the occurrences of events in sequences of events.

Restated: Time [term being defined] is when people/machines use time intervals to measure the occurrences of events in sequences of events [description/observation/measurement of the term being defined].

This definition does not specify ITIs or VITs but is relevant to both.

If this definition is not satisfactory to you, then provide another which is.

Your arrow traveling halfway to its target is a false analogy/case because of the fact that if the arrow's velocity does not change then it would travel the distance to its target in the expected time relevant to its velocity.

And if the arrow is decreasing in speed, then there will be a physical point at which it will stop moving forward, and perhaps would start moving backwards/reverse direction, but this is not the arrow velocity that normal/rational people think of when discussing speed (r), distance (d), and time (t) in d = rt, r = d/t, and t = d/r, all of which require r to be a steady velocity.

Thus, under a steady/unchanging velocity of r, an arrow traveling towards a target would indeed traverse the d in t.

Bob K

Bnonn:Invariable time intervals (ITIs) do in fact exist because they can be created by the use of invariable time-interval clocks (ITICs) as in (A) motion-sensing and self-adjusting clocks, or (B) clocks synchronized by radio signals from a master clock, and when they are used, then time is everywhere the same--ITIC spaceclocks and similar ITIC earthclocks show the same face readings/time measurements--and time dilation does not happen and without time dilation spacetime is destroyed.

To rephrase, to use your words, when ITICs are used, time will always be measured as the same at any/every location and will never vary relative to another location.

For your own reasons, you are not 'getting' the concept of a TI and therefore an ITI and its related principle that once established, by (A) motion-sensing/self-adjusting ITICs, or (B) ITICs which are synchronized by radio signals, the face readings--which are the measurements, the countings, of ITIs--of all ITICs will be identical, regardless of location, no exceptions can be possible, again, regardless of location, because the ITIs have been preserved by Type A ITICs or Type B ITICs.

Bob K

Bnonn:Try reading The Big Bang Never Happened by Eric Lerner to learn what's what with plasma physics and the possibility that there is a plausible alternative explanation for what's what in the universe, namely, that the Big Bang never happened.

We can determine the presence of something by its observed/measureable effects upon observable other things once we determine that what we think is an effect is truly an effect. We therefore do not have to 'see' photons but otherwise can measure their effects upon observable people/things/events.

Big Bang cosmology is based upon pure speculation and SR/GR, but when SR/GR is shown to be faulty because of the exclusive use of VTIs then the Big Bang cosmology comes under scrutiny for faults relevant to the use of VTIs vs. the use of ITIs.

Bob K

Bnonn:There never was a creation of time.

Time has always existed as the potential for the use of time-intervals for t he measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences of events.

Time, even if not directly measured by organisms/machines, continues to exist regardless of who is/is not measuring it.

Time is, in one sense, the history of the universe.

Your claim that space was created in a Big Bang is absolute nonsense, because a pure vacuum of an infinite/unlimited/unbounded volume cannot be created nor destroyed. It will exist for all time.

Your claim that matter/energy was created in a Big Bang is nonsense because of the fact that matter/energy would be required to create matter/energy but matter/energy has been shown to be indestructible, and is therefore a closed system within the universe, and therefore there can be no source of matter/energy from outside the universe to create the matter/energy present inside the universe.

You are floundering in nonsense because you do not have an opeational definition of 'universe' and so I challenge you to create one.

Let me get you started:You fill in the blank.

Bob K

Bnonn:Something from nothing is automatically pure nonsense, and you should know that, because in laboratories no one has observed something from nothing because they have not been able to rule out completely any possibility of something coming from matter/energy of some kind, perhaps of a kind not currently observed/known.

Something comprised of matter/energy can only come from something comprised of matter/energy. Scientists have observed somethings comprised of matter/energy coming from somethings comprised of matter/energy via E = mc2 and m = E/c2, which describe the indestructibility of matter/energy and the convertibility of matter into energy and energy into matter, all occurring within the closed matter/energy system of the universe into which no matter/energy can be added (where would it come from?) and from which no matter/energy can be taken away (where would it go?).

I.e., scientists have observed causality in which things/events comprised of matter/energy which were causes caused things/events comprised of matter/energy which were effects.

Physics has been described/defined as the science which studies the forces which cause changes of inertial states, and force is a form of matter/energy, force is produced by energy, hence no change of inertial state can be caused by nothing, by non-matter/energy, by a vacuum.

Bob K

Bnonn:You obviously do not know the history of the development of scientific ideas, most if not all of which have to start in someone's imagination, which means most if not all scientific ideas start with thought experiments [Einstein clearly stated his ideas were developed through thought experiments], and have to be confirmed to be accepted.

When we start from concrete observations which are clearly empirical evidence we can justifiably move outwards through reasoned extrapolation.

If we can observe that for every finite volume of X dimensions we can find another volume which surrounds and encompasses it, expressable by (X + i, where X is the original finite volume and i is the infinite volume surrounding and encompassing X) then we are justified in extrapolating (X + i) beyond X as the true nature of the infintie volume of space.

If in the laboratories we find that closed matter/energy systems (m/e systems), defined as m/e systems from which m/e cannot be taken away nor added to, have finite quantities of m/e, then we are justified in extrapolating from those observations the conclusion that the total m/e of the universe is a closed system because m/e cannot be taken away from it (where would it go?) and cannot be added to it (where would it come from?) and that, therefore, the total quantity of m/e present in the universe is not an infinite quantity, which would be without mathematical or physical limits, but is, instead, a finite quantity, which has mathematical/physical limits.

We are justified in concluding that ITIs exist not by necessary extrapolation but by their actual existence in ITICs, invariable time-interval clocks, which are A-type clocks which are motion-sensing and self-adjusting or which are B-type clocks which are synchronized by a master clock (possibly an A-type master clock).

From my understanding of the history of physics, physicists turned away from the essence of time, the time-interval, and the measurement/counting of time-intervals by timepieces/timeclocks, when they failed to consider the possibility of an invariable time-interval.

Albert Einstein tells us in his own book, Relatvity: The Special and General Theory, Crown Publishers, New York, 1961, p. 99, translated by Robert Lawson:

"Clocks, for which the law of motion is of any kind, however irregular, serve for the definition of time."

The message herein is clear: In clocks of irregular motion, caused by changes of velocity/gravity, variable time-intervals are produced, therefore, for Albert E variable time-intervals were used for his SR/GR theories, and he never considered the possibility of what invariable time-intervals would do to his SR/GR conclusions.

The fact is that ITIs/ITICs eliminate the possibility of time-dilation and thereby destroy SR/GR spacetime and the SR/GR supposed curvature of space and the SR/GR equivalence of space and gravity.

Jesse

Once again, although it is possible to build a set of clocks which sense acceleration/gravity and adjust themselves to stay synchronized within a particular inertial reference frame, programming these clocks would always involve an arbitrary decision about which inertial reference frame you want them to stay synchronized in. There is no unique way to do this, thus there are no unique ITIs--the time interval between two events (as well as the question of which events are simultaneous) still depends on your choice of reference frame, just as relativity says.

If you believe otherwise, you are simply demonstrating your ignorance of modern physics. There is no way to build a device or do an experiment that picks out a unique preferred reference frame, not according to any known principle of physics. Clocks which adjust for acceleration/gravity are no exception to this rule.

eh

Yes, but as we've all been told, modern physics is bullshit. So is geometry, math and logic.

Shadowy Man

Yes! As we all know, computers work on elf-power. It's common sense.