Young Universe Cosmology with Dr. Phillip Dennis

[Jefferson]

Young Universe Cosmology with Dr. Phillip Dennis

This is the show from Friday, August 18th, 2023


SUMMARY:


*Welcome Dr. Dennis: This week Fred Williams and Doug McBurney interview physicist Phillip Dennis, who does research in General Relativity and Gravitation, Cosmology, and Quantum Field Theory, among others. His projects include providing algorithms for the Hubble Space Telescope, tracking algorithms, and other mathematical algorithms, he has three patents and has been recognized with awards from NASA, TRW, and Litton.



*Presentism: says that just because special relativity presents the appearance that one cannot assign an objective time order to distantly occurring events, that does not mean there is no "actual now". There is an actual now, and we're all in it... right now!



*Phil's Cosmology Model: Dr. Dennis gives us his thoughts on quantum field theory, the wave-particle duality, distant starlight in a 6000-year-old universe, and an introduction to relativistic quantum theory for creationists.



*Links to Dr. Dennis' Papers: (at least to the ones mentioned on the show today). Read Dr. Dennis' Machian Paper on aspects of the nature of light, his Relativistic Cosmology, and his groundbreaking 1998 paper on Probability & Quantum Mechanics.

 

[Stripe]

More!

 

[PWDennis]

More!

Hello Stripe,
I hope to be back on soon!

 

[Stripe]

Hello Stripe,
I hope to be back on soon!

Awesome.

I was involved in a book called Disruptive by Steven Bryant challenging the assumptions that went into the formation of the theory of relativity.

It seems to me that the field of the nature of light is wide open, but it's a real challenge to find useful discussions on the matter. So show 1 (above) was a real treat.

 

[Clete]

So, I'm listening to the video now. Right off the bat, I noticed the reverb setting on the audio, which obviously has nothing to do with the substance of the discussion. Someone needs to turn the reverb down about 50%. Adding some reverb is terrific but it should not be accidentally noticeable by the casual listener. IMO.

 

[Clete]

I was unaware of the term "presentism"

Is "presentism" what Bob, (and I, without knowing it) was arguing here....

Is Time Absolute or Relative: Bob Enyart argues it's absolute...​

 

[JudgeRightly]

I was unaware of the term "presentism"

Is "presentism" what Bob, (and I, without knowing it) was arguing here....

Is Time Absolute or Relative: Bob Enyart argues it's absolute...​

Pretty much.

 

[PWDennis]

Late on commenting. Time is both absolute and relative. That is required by the presentist interpretation of relativistic physics. Time within the creation as a whole, i.e. the age of the cosmos, is absolute. However, objects moving within the spatial expanse of the cosmos will have relative times (or aging) with respect to each other (relativity and time dilation). The so called clock paradox is not a paradox. The twin leaving the earth and returning will indeed age less. Attached is a graphic (with some mathematical concepts included for those knowledgeable of same) which illustrate the concept.

 

[Clete]

Late on commenting. Time is both absolute and relative. That is required by the presentist interpretation of relativistic physics. Time within the creation as a whole, i.e. the age of the cosmos, is absolute. However, objects moving within the spatial expanse of the cosmos will have relative times (or aging) with respect to each other (relativity and time dilation). The so called clock paradox is not a paradox. The twin leaving the earth and returning will indeed age less. Attached is a graphic (with some mathematical concepts included for those knowledgeable of same) which illustrate the concept.

Saying it doesn't make it so. The biological processes we refer to as "aging" is just another form of clock. The point is that neither twin ever leaves the present moment. He passes from one moment to the next, just as his brother does, as is illustrated brilliantly by the thought experiment present by Bob Enyart (see link in post 6).

Time is not affected AT ALL by mass, motion, gravity or a loose spring in your watch. Clocks are affected, not time. Time cannot be affected by physical things because it is not physical in nature. It is an idea. The clocks we use to measure time, may change, but time itself doesn't exist to be changed in the ontological sense of the word.

Same goes for space, by the way. Space is an abstraction and does not exist outside a thinking mind. Just as time is a convention of language that is used to communicate information about the duration and sequence of events relative to other events, so space is a similar convention of language used to communicate information about an objects position and motion relative to other objects. The tools we use to measure between objects may change but space itself does not exist to be changed in the ontological sense of the word.

In short, time and space are absolute by definition. It can only make sense to discuss it in relative terms if you redefine the terms, which is precisely what physicists have done. They define both time and space in terms of the tools used to measure them. Thus, it's just a matter of which side of the equation you put the "t" as to whether time was effected or the clock that measured it and since it makes far more sense to expect physical processes to affect physical objects rather than abstract ideas, it is really the clocks (and the meter sticks) that are being effected, not time (and space).

Clete

 

[PWDennis]

... The biological processes we refer to as "aging" is just another form of clock. The point is that neither twin ever leaves the present moment. He passes from one moment to the next, just as his brother does, as is illustrated brilliantly by the thought experiment present by Bob Enyart (see link in post 6).

My explanation agrees with that. Both twins are always in the same cosmic now and in the same 3D space at each instant of that universal cosmic "now." Space and time are absolute. (As illustrated in the attached graphic above). Hopefully I can expand on this in another podcast.
Phil

 

[Yorzhik]

Late on commenting. Time is both absolute and relative. That is required by the presentist interpretation of relativistic physics. Time within the creation as a whole, i.e. the age of the cosmos, is absolute. However, objects moving within the spatial expanse of the cosmos will have relative times (or aging) with respect to each other (relativity and time dilation). The so called clock paradox is not a paradox. The twin leaving the earth and returning will indeed age less. Attached is a graphic (with some mathematical concepts included for those knowledgeable of same) which illustrate the concept.

And this fits somewhat closer to the idea that one can, in effect, travel forward in time relative between certain frames, but never backward in time between those same frames. And just that understanding seems to solve a lot of problems.

And this also means there are never relative frames than can ever travel backward in time under any circumstances.

 

[Yorzhik]

My explanation agrees with that. Both twins are always in the same cosmic now and in the same 3D space at each instant of that universal cosmic "now." Space and time are absolute. (As illustrated in the attached graphic above). Hopefully I can expand on this in another podcast.
Phil

Although, if distance doesn't affect entangled particles, is there a scenario where information could travel backward in time? On the surface the answer would be "no", but there are people who are smarter than me that might be able to come up with something.

 

[Gary K]

Young Universe Cosmology with Dr. Phillip Dennis

This is the show from Friday, August 18th, 2023


SUMMARY:


*Welcome Dr. Dennis: This week Fred Williams and Doug McBurney interview physicist Phillip Dennis, who does research in General Relativity and Gravitation, Cosmology, and Quantum Field Theory, among others. His projects include providing algorithms for the Hubble Space Telescope, tracking algorithms, and other mathematical algorithms, he has three patents and has been recognized with awards from NASA, TRW, and Litton.



*Presentism: says that just because special relativity presents the appearance that one cannot assign an objective time order to distantly occurring events, that does not mean there is no "actual now". There is an actual now, and we're all in it... right now!



*Phil's Cosmology Model: Dr. Dennis gives us his thoughts on quantum field theory, the wave-particle duality, distant starlight in a 6000-year-old universe, and an introduction to relativistic quantum theory for creationists.



*Links to Dr. Dennis' Papers: (at least to the ones mentioned on the show today). Read Dr. Dennis' Machian Paper on aspects of the nature of light, his Relativistic Cosmology, and his groundbreaking 1998 paper on Probability & Quantum Mechanics.

That's a very interesting video.

 

[Gary K]

My explanation agrees with that. Both twins are always in the same cosmic now and in the same 3D space at each instant of that universal cosmic "now." Space and time are absolute. (As illustrated in the attached graphic above). Hopefully I can expand on this in another podcast.
Phil

I have a question for you on basic physics. Is physics all about ratios?

 

[Clete]

My explanation agrees with that. Both twins are always in the same cosmic now and in the same 3D space at each instant of that universal cosmic "now." Space and time are absolute. (As illustrated in the attached graphic above). Hopefully I can expand on this in another podcast.
Phil

The point is that if you adopt their vernacular, you concede the debate before opening your mouth to make an argument.
It is not time that is relative - period. Not any kind of time because there isn't more than one kind of time. The performance of clocks is relative, which, in spite of physicist's insistence to the contrary, is not the same thing. The distinction is important for a lot of reasons, both scientific and philosophical, not the least of which has to do with the modern bent in the scientific community toward believing that something is true because their mathematics says it is. When you divorce your science from physical things and processes, you're doing something other than physics and when you take one nonphysical thing (mathematics) and use it to say that physical things (mass, motion, etc) effect nonphysical things (time and space) then you've committed a double "sin" (scientifically speaking). Then to take the same non-physical abstraction (mathematics) and use it to insist that two non-physical abstractions (space and time) are the same thing, you've just dropped off the cliffs of insanity where anything you want can be redefined to mean anything that fits your equations.

 

[Clete]

Although, if distance doesn't affect entangled particles, is there a scenario where information could travel backward in time? On the surface the answer would be "no", but there are people who are smarter than me that might be able to come up with something.

The question answers itself.

There is no such thing as "backward in time". Time is not thing that anything is "in", nor is it something that anything travels "through", except as a figure of speech.

Existence exists - NOW.

You cannot go to a place that does not exist. The past is not there to travel to and neither is the future. We are not traveling through time, we simply exist and events happen and we remember them and have invented words in our language that are used to talk about when some event took place and we can project that same concept in the opposite direct and make plans around events that have yet to take place. The former we call the past and the later we call the future and while we can conceptualize them enough to talk as though they are places that exist, the fact is that they are just ideas and only exist inside our minds.

 

[Clete]

And this fits somewhat closer to the idea that one can, in effect, travel forward in time relative between certain frames, but never backward in time between those same frames. And just that understanding seems to solve a lot of problems.

And this also means there are never relative frames than can ever travel backward in time under any circumstances.

The fact that it only works in one direction is proof that time doesn't exist! If it did, there wouldn't be any reason why it couldn't be made to work in both directions. The reason it feels like it works in one direction and not the other is precisely because everything that exists does so NOW and only NOW. The clocks can slow down all they want but neither you nor your slower twin ever leaves the present. They don't leave the present because "the present" doesn't exist either. That too is a concept that exists in a thinking mind. Existence exists (notice present tense). So long as you exist, you are limited to NOW because that's what it means to exist.

This starts to sound and feel repetitive but it's kind of necessary because the concepts of time are so embedded in our language and way of thinking that it's easy to get yourself off tract and start talking about abstractions as though they were real things.

 

[Stripe]

Late on commenting. Time is both absolute and relative. That is required by the presentist interpretation of relativistic physics. Time within the creation as a whole, i.e. the age of the cosmos, is absolute. However, objects moving within the spatial expanse of the cosmos will have relative times (or aging) with respect to each other (relativity and time dilation). The so called clock paradox is not a paradox. The twin leaving the earth and returning will indeed age less. Attached is a graphic (with some mathematical concepts included for those knowledgeable of same) which illustrate the concept.

Does that rely on the assumption of the constancy of light speed regardless of reference?

That's a rhetorical question.