proof that time is not linear

[scruffy]

This information will boggle some minds, for sure.

Time, physical time usually represented as t, is not an actual dimension.

Scruffy was right, and Einstein was wrong.

(Pats self on back).

So how this works, is now confirmed by the Webb space telescope.

The universe is in fact expanding at different rates in different places.

James Webb telescope confirms there is something seriously wrong with our understanding of the universe

Depending on where we look, the universe is expanding at different rates. Now, scientists using the James Webb and Hubble space telescopes have confirmed that the observation is not down to a measurement error.

www.livescience.com

What this has to do with Einstein, is that the gravitational constant is not in fact a constant. Relativity is more complex than simple Lorenz transformations and Minkowski space.

Scruffy says: time is very much like temperature. It's a "local average", based on the population behavior of billions of constituent atoms (or in this case, information exchanges operating at the Planck scale, which is somewhere around 10^-43 seconds).

 

[rampart]

This information will boggle some minds, for sure.

Time, physical time usually represented as t, is not an actual dimension.

Scruffy was right, and Einstein was wrong.

(Pats self on back).

So how this works, is now confirmed by the Webb space telescope.

The universe is in fact expanding at different rates in different places.

James Webb telescope confirms there is something seriously wrong with our understanding of the universe

Depending on where we look, the universe is expanding at different rates. Now, scientists using the James Webb and Hubble space telescopes have confirmed that the observation is not down to a measurement error.

www.livescience.com

What this has to do with Einstein, is that the gravitational constant is not in fact a constant. Relativity is more complex than simple Lorenz transformations and Minkowski space.

Scruffy says: time is very much like temperature. It's a "local average", based on the population behavior of billions of constituent atoms (or in this case, information exchanges operating at the Planck scale, which is somewhere around 10^-43 seconds).

interesting observations. i'm not sure how the math works, on this, my first thought is that "this seems to prove earth is NOT the center of the universe favored by the monotheistic cults, but is actually located in a remote location far out on a spiral arm of an obscure galaxy among billions of others. almost like the civilized aliens have exiled our primitive species until we grow up.

 

[E. Pluribus]

Time drags when we work Monday through Friday, but it seems like the weekend flies by and it's Monday again, so yes time is not linear.

 

[rampart]

Time drags when we work Monday through Friday, but it seems like the weekend flies by and it's Monday again, so yes time is not linear.

"the days are long but the years are short.

 

[shockedcanadian]

This information will boggle some minds, for sure.

Time, physical time usually represented as t, is not an actual dimension.

Scruffy was right, and Einstein was wrong.

(Pats self on back).

So how this works, is now confirmed by the Webb space telescope.

The universe is in fact expanding at different rates in different places.

James Webb telescope confirms there is something seriously wrong with our understanding of the universe

Depending on where we look, the universe is expanding at different rates. Now, scientists using the James Webb and Hubble space telescopes have confirmed that the observation is not down to a measurement error.

www.livescience.com

What this has to do with Einstein, is that the gravitational constant is not in fact a constant. Relativity is more complex than simple Lorenz transformations and Minkowski space.

Scruffy says: time is very much like temperature. It's a "local average", based on the population behavior of billions of constituent atoms (or in this case, information exchanges operating at the Planck scale, which is somewhere around 10^-43 seconds).

Interesting. Perhaps it is related to the distance between other bodies in space? These bodies can push or pull at different rates?

I don't know. I'm just a dumb Canuck being persecuted by the cowardly ones.

 

[MisterBeale]

. . . all of this, of course, presupposes that it isn't all just an elaborate simulation.

In which case, all of the algorithms of the simulation, can be programmed to be, anything that the program needs them to be. . .

We Live in a Simulation. The evidence is everywhere. All you have to do is look.​

Confirmed! We Live in a Simulation​

We must never doubt Elon Musk again

Confirmed! We Live in a Simulation

We must never doubt Elon Musk again

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[zaangalewa]

This information will boggle some minds, for sure.

Time, physical time usually represented as t, is not an actual dimension.

Scruffy was right, and Einstein was wrong.

(Pats self on back).

So how this works, is now confirmed by the Webb space telescope.

The universe is in fact expanding at different rates in different places.

James Webb telescope confirms there is something seriously wrong with our understanding of the universe

Depending on where we look, the universe is expanding at different rates. Now, scientists using the James Webb and Hubble space telescopes have confirmed that the observation is not down to a measurement error.

www.livescience.com

What this has to do with Einstein, is that the gravitational constant

Which gravitational constant? That's Newton.
The magnitude of the force between two mass points m1 and m2 at a distance r is:

The expansion of the universe has not to do with G - it is an expansion of the space. This has to do with the Hubble-constant

. It is

or

.

is not in fact a constant. Relativity is more complex than simple Lorenz transformations and Minkowski space.

Also with the Lorenz transformation and spacetime this has nothing to do. Gravity is still stretching the spactime. And the relativity factor is still the Lorenz transformation.

Scruffy says: time is very much like temperature. It's a "local average", based on the population behavior of billions of constituent atoms (or in this case, information exchanges operating at the Planck scale, which is somewhere around 10^-43 seconds).

Plank-length/Plank-time = 299.792.422 m/s = lightspeed. Also this constants are not envolved.

That the universe is expanding with different rates is really very astonishing. It expands faster in our near, I heard. And "near" is 3 billion lightyears, I heard. No idea whether this is the radius of "near" or the diameter of "near". And no idea what means "faster".

On the other side ... If we are in the centre of the big bang ... would it not make sense that it was first faster and then slower? And when started the universe to expand accelerated? Could this explain the different rates? What if behind of this results are two independent processes?

 

[zaangalewa]

interesting observations. i'm not sure how the math works, on this, my first thought is that "this seems to prove earth is NOT the center of the universe favored by the monotheistic cults,

The universe expands from all points into all directions. So every point of the universe is always only in the middle - specially the world of monotheistic idiots like me. No idea what's going on with your banana.

but is actually located in a remote location far out on a spiral arm of an obscure galaxy among billions of others. almost like the civilized aliens have exiled our primitive species until we grow up.

 

[ding]

This information will boggle some minds, for sure.

Time, physical time usually represented as t, is not an actual dimension.

Scruffy was right, and Einstein was wrong.

(Pats self on back).

So how this works, is now confirmed by the Webb space telescope.

The universe is in fact expanding at different rates in different places.

James Webb telescope confirms there is something seriously wrong with our understanding of the universe

Depending on where we look, the universe is expanding at different rates. Now, scientists using the James Webb and Hubble space telescopes have confirmed that the observation is not down to a measurement error.

www.livescience.com

What this has to do with Einstein, is that the gravitational constant is not in fact a constant. Relativity is more complex than simple Lorenz transformations and Minkowski space.

Scruffy says: time is very much like temperature. It's a "local average", based on the population behavior of billions of constituent atoms (or in this case, information exchanges operating at the Planck scale, which is somewhere around 10^-43 seconds).

I suspect it has nothing to do with our understanding of relativity and everything to do with our understanding of dark matter and how it is distributed and adjusts to the expansion of the universe.

 

[scruffy]

I suspect it has nothing to do with our understanding of relativity and everything to do with our understanding of dark matter and how it is distributed and adjusts to the expansion of the universe.

Nope. Entanglement has already been shown at 10,000 times the speed of light.

What we're looking at is very likely microentanglement made visible and near-Gaussian by the law of large numbers.

 

[ding]

Nope. Entanglement has already been shown at 10,000 times the speed of light.

What we're looking at is very likely microentanglement made visible and near-Gaussian by the law of large numbers.

And has nothing to do with this.

 

[scruffy]

And has nothing to do with this.

Oh, but it does

You want to study Renyi entropy.

And Kullback-Leibler divergence.

And this:

Information Distances versus Entropy Metric

Information distance has become an important tool in a wide variety of applications. Various types of information distance have been made over the years. These information distance measures are different from entropy metric, as the former is based on Kolmogorov complexity and the latter on...

www.mdpi.com

 

[scruffy]

The question is how and what you're measuring.

Are you measuring what you think you're measuring, or are you just measuring our perception of it?

For example, distance, in a curved universe.

If time is not linear, why would you measure it with a clock?

 

[scruffy]

And furthermore -

How long is the coastline of Britain?

Answer:

It depends on the size of your ruler.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

And furthermore -

How long is the coastline of Britain?

Answer:

It depends on the size of your ruler.

I can just imagine going around it with a tape measure.

 

[ding]

Oh, but it does

You want to study Renyi entropy.

And Kullback-Leibler divergence.

And this:

Information Distances versus Entropy Metric

Information distance has become an important tool in a wide variety of applications. Various types of information distance have been made over the years. These information distance measures are different from entropy metric, as the former is based on Kolmogorov complexity and the latter on...

www.mdpi.com

I'd rather you explain how it does in less than 25 of your own words.

 

[scruffy]

I'd rather you explain how it does in less than 25 of your own words.

Easy. They claim they're measuring "rate" of "expansion". But that's not really what they're measuring.

I refer you to Monika Schleier's rubidium atoms. She's actually done the experiment, with astounding results. She can create spacetime "over there" based on activity "here". Look at how she measures, and why.

 

[ding]

. . . all of this, of course, presupposes that it isn't all just an elaborate simulation.

In which case, all of the algorithms of the simulation, can be programmed to be, anything that the program needs them to be. . .

We Live in a Simulation. The evidence is everywhere. All you have to do is look.​

Confirmed! We Live in a Simulation​

We must never doubt Elon Musk again

Confirmed! We Live in a Simulation

We must never doubt Elon Musk again

www.scientificamerican.com

Consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality much like particles and waves are different aspects of elementary particles. With that said, it's not so much that this is a simulation, as it is that this is an alternate reality.

 

[ding]

Easy. They claim they're measuring "rate" of "expansion". But that's not really what they're measuring.

I refer you to Monika Schleier's rubidium atoms. She's actually done the experiment, with astounding results. She can create spacetime "over there" based on activity "here". Look at how she measures, and why.

What is it that they are measuring? If not the stretching of space time?

 

[ding]

. . . all of this, of course, presupposes that it isn't all just an elaborate simulation.

In which case, all of the algorithms of the simulation, can be programmed to be, anything that the program needs them to be. . .

We Live in a Simulation. The evidence is everywhere. All you have to do is look.​

Confirmed! We Live in a Simulation​

We must never doubt Elon Musk again

Confirmed! We Live in a Simulation

We must never doubt Elon Musk again

www.scientificamerican.com

It is primarily physicists who have expressed the relationship between mind and matter, and the primacy of mind.