Therefore, light in a heavy gravitational pull WILL travel faster (or slower - I don't know which)

No! Light travels at c in free space (speed is slower in dense media). Period. Space changes size in the presence of a gravitational field, causing an apparent slowing of light from our perspective. Except for things too big or too small, we have very accurate transforms for translating from our frame-of-reference to another. These things are not debatable, IMHO.

 

Check this out, it's rather illustrative:

http://futurism.com/john-wheelers-participatory-universe/​

*** According to the quantum theory, before the observation is made, a subatomic particle exists in several states, called a superposition (or, as Wheeler called it, a ‘smoky dragon’). Once the particle is observed, it instantaneously collapses into a single position. Wheeler suggested that reality is created by observers and that: “no phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.”

Nothing really spooky about that as the 'observer' does not imply human or even intelligence only measurement. It's what defines a quantum measurement of values like position or energy that's really important and currently open to Interpretation.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...m_superposition_of_states_and_decoherence.ogv

 

It's what defines a quantum measurement of values like position or energy that's really important and currently open to Interpretation.

So, which one's your favorite? Multiple worlds, or Copenhagen?
Or maybe there are other options out there?

 

So, which one's your favorite? Multiple worlds, or Copenhagen?
Or maybe there are other options out there?

Favorite? That's like asking what theory of the after-life is your favorite? I've no clue, they all seem metaphysical in someway. Copenhagen seems a little less magical because we can't have perfect knowledge of the universe and being married I accept non-deterministic unpredictability even if I can't explain it.

 

Nothing really spooky about that as the 'observer' does not imply human or even intelligence only measurement.

A while ago I read this article in SA that what is actually required is consciousness, which is extremely strange to me, to say the least. That is why some scientists are proposing the existence of a primordial q-bit, otherwise it would be inevitable to drag God into the theory... I don't want to bring religion into the subject, but in this case (at least for me) it seems inevitable that everything points to a creator.

I've no clue, they all seem metaphysical in someway.

I share your opinion... now we're on the same page

 

I don't want to bring religion into the subject, but in this case (at least for me) it seems inevitable that everything points to a creator.

I'm an avowed atheist, and serious scientist, and even I have trouble denying such a thing. Weird, huh?

 

I'm an avowed atheist, and serious scientist, and even I have trouble denying such a thing. Weird, huh?

It means that you're an honest person, Joey.

A discussion like the one we're having never really ends. The reason why I'm here is to hear other (intelligent) people's thoughts on the subject... see if I learn something new.

 

Before time began? When was that? When man first started marking it? What is a second? What is a minute? What is an hour? Aren't they just units we measure by some set standard? OK, we call a day a day because the earth rotates about its axes once. A year is a year because that's the time our earth travels one complete circuit around the sun. You can divide it up in many ways, but still, it's the same passage around the sun.

Why do we measure the universe in relative terms to how many times the earth has (or would theoretically have) traveled around the sun? Probably because at one point we thought we were the center of the universe, and everything we knew revolved around us. With time (there's that word again) we've come to know more about our nature and existence. But that hasn't stopped us from imagining we know something because the numbers seem to say so. Numbers have been wrong before. Otherwise Einstein's theories would hold up in the macro world as well as the micro world.

I don't even remotely presume to act like someone who knows anything about quantum physics. All I can say is that time exists because we mark it. Otherwise, does time really exist? Same question as 'does a tree make a noise if it falls and nobody is there to hear it?' In some sense of the word "Noise", the answer must be "No." Because a noise is something WE perceive to be real. Actually it's just vibrations. And a vibration isn't a noise until it's picked up by our auditory senses.

Time, like noise, does not exist. The ONLY "Time" that has ever existed and ever will exist is the time known as "NOW". No matter when you refer to "Now", "Now" is always "now." Even if it was "Now" 10 minutes ago, back then it was "Now". Now, it's "Now". It's the only thing that ever does exist.

The concept of "Eternity" is interesting too. How many times has our universe collapsed in on itself only to explode and become an expanding universe? 10 times? What existed before the first time? Maybe 11 times. Or 12. Or 200 billion. Time itself is a human endeavor to understand things going on around him. To say that something happened 12 years ago only marks how much "Time" has passed since then. Even then, our means of measuring time isn't accurate. Go faster, fly higher, park next to a huge gravity well and time becomes all kinds of different things. OR so the numbers say. And frankly, you can make the numbers say almost anything. But still, eternity. Why eternity? Why not? We can't imagine such a thing. But a god can. Supposedly a god made everything. But if so then he must have made everything in the middle of eternity. So now then the question is "Why did god wait so long to make everything?" Because eternity has no middle. But supposing it did, and eternity stretches on backwards just as it will forward, then god would have had to wait an extraordinarily long time before beginning his creative works.

OK, I don't believe in a god. That's just me. And I don't believe in the concept of time, beyond how many times a crystal vibrates. We merely PRESUME to know what time is. The speed of light. And whatever else one can presume to know. But HOW do we know the speed of light? If light travels 1 mile per hour, and time can change then light speed can change. So it's 186,000 miles per second. Anything traveling at that speed - time is supposed to come to a stop. So if LIGHT is traveling at the speed of light then how can it travel any distance PER SECOND IF time has stopped? Maybe the TRUE speed of light is 372,000 miles per second - BUT because as it goes faster time slows down, and thus, light itself slows down. Maybe the "Speed of light" is ACTUALLY "The HALF speed of light." Maybe ALL our calculations based off of the speed of light are wrong. Maybe THAT is why Einstein's theories break down under certain circumstances. Well, it's all "MAYBE".

So when it comes to thinking of these things - I prefer to sip a beer and watch the ants try to contemplate their farm. To them it may be all the universe. To us it's just two sheets of glass and a plastic frame. Maybe We're the ants in some cosmic scientist's farm, THINKING we know all there is to know. Science fiction (and those pesky numbers) seem to suggest parallel universes. Well, like I said, you can make numbers say almost anything if you're good enough with them. Granted, I am less than able to figure time concepts in an RC circuit. Let alone the cosmos.

What was before the big bang? A previous big bang - probably. Can it be proved? Nope. Not with the understanding we have now.

HEY! ALL! Have a good time.

Re: "Why do cosmologists say: “Before Big Bang there was no time”?"

It seems to me that for a bang to bang time has to be in progress outside the banging. So yes, there was a time before the bang.

 

Re: "Why do cosmologists say: “Before Big Bang there was no time”?"

It seems to me that for a bang to bang time has to be in progress outside the banging. So yes, there was a time before the bang.

Flashback before the last big bang.

 

Re: "Why do cosmologists say: “Before Big Bang there was no time”?"

It seems to me that for a bang to bang time has to be in progress outside the banging. So yes, there was a time before the bang.

Unfortunately, that sort of statement belongs more in the realm of philosophy than that of science... not that there's anything wrong with philosophy, it's just that for something to be scientific it must be subject to more than just a priori reasoning

 

Again, I say "Time is an invention of man to meter his activities by."

 

Again, I say "Time is an invention of man to meter his activities by."

 

​

 

Unfortunately,
that sort of statement belongs more in the realm of philosophy than that of science...
not that there's anything wrong with philosophy, it's just that for something to be scientific
it must be subject to more than just a priori reasoning

“Today’s physicists are still struggling to come to grips with
quantum weirdness, . . . many of them – perhaps most – simple
exploit the fact that quantum mechanics works and leave the rest
to the philosophers.”
/Universe on a T-shirt, page 136. By Dan Falk”
=====…
And vice versa: philosophers leave the rest to the physicists.
The circle is closed.
====…

 

The expansion of the universe (big bang) is justified using a spiral galaxy but the photograph of a spiral galaxy is arbitrarily created, by manipulating the photographic plate, since the original photograph of the alleged galaxy resembles a smudge. Also, the photograph of the Milky Way spiral galaxy, that contains the sun and the earth, is fictional, since to take this photograph would require that the photographer be many light years away from the earth. In addition, the photograph of the Eagle Nebula, using the Spitzer telescope is also fictitiously created, using computer imaginary, since the photograph represents the view of a celestial gas (fig 13) yet the vacuum of celestial space is void of the quantity of gas molecules implied in the photograph of the Eagle Nebula. Also, modern astronomers are viewing a single point in space (.1 arcseconds), using the Spitzer telescope, in photographing the Eagle Nebula that has a width of more than 70 light years and represents over 8000 stars yet the Spitzer space telescope does not have the resolution power to view the lunar lander on the surface of the moon. Astronomers are assuming that the Spitzer telescope has the power to resolve the stars of the Eagle Nebula that is 7000 light years from the earth. In addition, to determine the resolution, of the Eagle Nebula, requires the distance from the earth to the Eagle Nebula but the stellar universe is stationary; consequently, the distance, from the earth to the Eagle Nebula, necessary to determine the resolution, cannot be determined which is experimental proof the photograph of the Eagle Nebula is fiction. Furthermore, the red shift is used to justify the expansion theory but every star, at different times and positions, forms both red and blue shifts since the stellar universe is stationary. The same method of deception, based on the earth's daily and yearly rotational motions, that ancient scientists used to justify the theory that the earth is the center of the Universe is used to verify the expansion theory.



"History shows us examples of scientists who were able to make a great leap forward specifically because they were not limited by the data. One of the most dramatic examples occurs at the beginning of the nineteenth century, when we may find a scientist willing to ignore the limitations of numerical facts for the sake of correct idea or theory, even to the extent of saying that certain numbers probably should be made a little bit bigger, others a little smaller, and so on. It was precisely in this way that Dalton proceeded in developing his atomic theory. Some scientists do not like examples of this sort, because they imply a special virtue "fudging" the evidence or "cooking" the data, and they warn us that we must not ever tell our science students that discoveries have been made in this way." (Suppe, 300-301).