Einstein on the train

[Logik]

...we don't yet have the means to make any such measurement. Short of any such means, the likelihood of all the data being brought back to one place and the clocks being synchronised is, realistically, nil.

It doesn't have to be brought back to one place. It only needs to be captured synchronously.

Processing can happen later. The GPS system already offers one such mechanisms for clock synchronicity.
The notion of vector clocks/Lamport clocks from distributed systems is another theoretical tool.

This paper from Google discusses some of the ideas of "distributed event ordering": https://ai.google/research/pubs/pub39966

Depends on what you mean by 'information' in your field and whether that translates into 'information' as understood by physicists, which is basically any data point; the ontology of which is irrelevant. Any physicist that claims to know about the ontology of time is a halfwit.

In a pure relativist fashion - you don't have to understand the ontology of it. You just have to find a fulcrum from which to measure it.
If the "only constant is change", that which changes least (least entropy) is your fulcrum.

Yes. It's roughly a thermometer, but not quite because of its distributed fashion.

So three systems doing same experiment at same time, providing different results means hidden variable.

It means what it means. Human epistemology is based on the "map-teritory" distinction we use the territory as a reference point. An arbiter of "truth" if you will. We expect reality to be "true" or whatever the fuck that means.

You expect to measure the same thing from three different perspectives and get the same result. When you don't get the same result, but you do get an error-bound in the discrepancy/disagreement you are measuring <something>. Give it a name. Entropy? Noise?

It helps calibrate our tools. It helps bring us closer to the ideal of "solid ground".

Well, first you have to account for the absolute motion through space (good luck with that) and every source of gravitation, including that black hole we're falling into.

No, I don't. Law of large numbers. On average the noise is the same everywhere.

[Age]

Now, is this shift always to the red, or sometimes to the blue?

Off the top of my head, there are roughly 100 galaxies that show blue shift. They are either local, like Andromeda, and are being pulled together by gravity, or they are in the Virgo cluster, all of which is heading our way (if you buy the Doppler explanation)-part of the general turbulence of the universe, as far as we can tell. The other trillion or so all display redshift.

So, from what you are saying here, it sounds like some parts of the Universe are expanding while other parts are contracting. If some galaxies are supposedly receding from one another while others galaxies are approaching each other, then do you have any explanation for this?

Could the human made tools, which take measurements, AND the assumptions based off of those taken measurements be in any way NOT showing what is really happening and/or missing the actual Truth if things?

Also, what is your better explanation of the Universe. It is expanding, contracting, just in "general turbulence", I do not know, or something else?

[uwot]

So, from what you are saying here, it sounds like some parts of the Universe are expanding while other parts are contracting. If some galaxies are supposedly receding from one another while others galaxies are approaching each other, then do you have any explanation for this?

Well, the explanation that I find most compelling is that while the universe is expanding, some galaxies are being drawn together by gravity, or as I said general turbulence.

Could the human made tools, which take measurements, AND the assumptions based off of those taken measurements be in any way NOT showing what is really happening and/or missing the actual Truth if things?

That is the possibility that any scientist has to accept. It is the reason why 'discoveries' such as the Higgs Boson and gravitational waves are only tentatively announced months, or even years, after the actual find. Even then, it is still conceivable that an error has been made, as was the case with 'faster than light' neutrinos. Having said that, it would be astonishing if the thousands of observations that support red and blue shift all contain different errors than produce the same result.

Also, what is your better explanation of the Universe. It is expanding, contracting, just in "general turbulence", I do not know, or something else?

As an analogy, think of a soap bubble. As you blow it up, the iridescence swirls around, so some bits get closer to each other, but overall, everything is moving apart.

[Logik]

That is the possibility that any scientist has to accept (....), it would be astonishing if the thousands of observations that support red and blue shift all contain different errors than produce the same result.

This is fundamentally where all scientists and applied ethicists drift apart (for a lack of a better juxtaposition). In a consequentialist framework different errors have different cost.

When you are only "telling stories" then the most likely story is the "true" one.

When you put your counterfactual hat on and you allow yourself to accept that indeed an error has been made and you calculate the consequences of such an error, then re-interpret the data in the new framework you have just synthesized - the world looks very different.

1 in 100 risk of being wrong about the origin of the Universe.
1 in 100 risk of parachute not opening.

Gamblers take probability * impact into account.
Scientists ignore impact.

This is the error of symmetry. The cost of error is asymmetrical.

[Age]

So, from what you are saying here, it sounds like some parts of the Universe are expanding while other parts are contracting. If some galaxies are supposedly receding from one another while others galaxies are approaching each other, then do you have any explanation for this?

Well, the explanation that I find most compelling is that while the universe is expanding, some galaxies are being drawn together by gravity, or as I said general turbulence.

Have you got any actual EVIDENCE that the Universe is expanding or is that just a BELIEF that you have?

Could the human made tools, which take measurements, AND the assumptions based off of those taken measurements be in any way NOT showing what is really happening and/or missing the actual Truth if things?

That is the possibility that any scientist has to accept. It is the reason why 'discoveries' such as the Higgs Boson and gravitational waves are only tentatively announced months, or even years, after the actual find.

Have you ever wondered about what the chances were with the coincidences when these theories, which are generally accepted and held by scientists, and how often 'discoveries' are made supporting these theories?

Is it just a coincidence how many times that instruments and tools are made, by people labeled "scientists", to "look for" things, and then remarkable what is being "looked for" is found? Which then gives more weight to those theories that were previously liked, by those same so called "scientists"?

Even then, it is still conceivable that an error has been made, as was the case with 'faster than light' neutrinos. Having said that, it would be astonishing if the thousands of observations that support red and blue shift all contain different errors than produce the same result.

Supporting red and/or blue shift is NOT in dispute. What red and/or blue shift ACTUALLY MEANS or PRESCRIBES TO is in question.

Also, what is your better explanation of the Universe. It is expanding, contracting, just in "general turbulence", I do not know, or something else?

As an analogy, think of a soap bubble. As you blow it up, the iridescence swirls around, so some bits get closer to each other, but overall, everything is moving apart.

So, is an expanding Universe still how you see things? You wanted: An easy explanation for the apparent galactic redshift? I think you already HAVE ONE.

Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

You are free to see things anyway you want to.

Your explanation is obviously NOT what the actual real True IS, but you are free to believe and follow the majorities view if you so wish.

The very reason WHY all the confusion in regards to the Universe Itself began is obvious, especially considering WHERE it all started from and HOW it is still continuing on.

[Logik]

Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

We know this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleene%27 ... nt_theorem

Rogers's fixed-point theorem. If If F is a total computable function, it has a fixed point.

The fixed-point theorem shows that no computable function is fixed point free, but there are many non-computable fixed-point free functions. Arslanov's completeness criterion states that the only recursively enumerable Turing degree that computes a fixed point free function is 0′, the degree of the halting problem (Soare 1987, p. 88)

If the Universe can be described with a wave function F, then it has a fixed point. That fixed point is the observer.

[Age]

Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

We know this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleene%27 ... nt_theorem

Rogers's fixed-point theorem. If If F is a total computable function, it has a fixed point.

The fixed-point theorem shows that no computable function is fixed point free, but there are many non-computable fixed-point free functions. Arslanov's completeness criterion states that the only recursively enumerable Turing degree that computes a fixed point free function is 0′, the degree of the halting problem (Soare 1987, p. 88)

If the Universe can be described with a wave function F, then it has a fixed point. That fixed point is the observer.

Contrary to your BELIEF computers will NOT help you to UNDERSTAND and KNOW how AND why the Universe is the way that It IS.

The answers to these is just plain and simple ALREADY KNOWN.

[Logik]

Contrary to your BELIEF computers will NOT help you to UNDERSTAND and KNOW how AND why the Universe is the way that It IS.

Who is even asking such questions?

The answers to these is just plain and simple ALREADY KNOWN.

Then why are you having so much trouble communicating "the answer" to us ?

There is absence of any and all information in just about everything you say.

Empty words....

[Age]

Contrary to your BELIEF computers will NOT help you to UNDERSTAND and KNOW how AND why the Universe is the way that It IS.

Who is even asking such questions?

NO one, thus the very reason why the answers are NOT being divulged.

I mentioned that because I talk about how EVERY thing is relative to the observer, which includes the Universe Itself, and you, once again, bring up computers and theorems as though they hold and provide answers to things I was talking about.

The answers to these is just plain and simple ALREADY KNOWN.

Then why are you having so much trouble communicating "the answer" to us ?

Maybe a lack of curiosity? Maybe assumptions and beliefs? Maybe a lack of human interaction? Maybe something else? Or maybe human beings are just NOT open or NOT honest enough?

There is absence of any and all information in just about everything you say.

Well that should be clearly obvious.

That is exactly HOW I purposely speak in this forum.

The more I make you human beings assume things, the more evidence is being produced, and then the more I have to work with.

Empty words....

For a purpose.

[uwot]

There is absence of any and all information in just about everything you say.

Well that should be clearly obvious.

That is exactly HOW I purposely speak in this forum.

The more I make you human beings assume things, the more evidence is being produced, and then the more I have to work with.

Do me a favour Age, either tell us what your big and OBVIOUS idea is, or Foxtrot Oscar from my thread.

[Age]

There is absence of any and all information in just about everything you say.

Well that should be clearly obvious.

That is exactly HOW I purposely speak in this forum.

The more I make you human beings assume things, the more evidence is being produced, and then the more I have to work with.

Do me a favour Age, either tell us what your big and OBVIOUS idea is,

In regards to what exactly?

or Foxtrot Oscar from my thread.

What does that even mean?

[uwot]

Do me a favour Age, either tell us what your big and OBVIOUS idea is,

In regards to what exactly?

Any of these:

The actual Truth IS:

The Universe did NOT have a beginning.
The Universe is NOT expanding.
The Universe is made up of two fundamental things that have co-existed always.
At least two things are needed to create any thing.
The Universe is one thing that creates every thing.

or Foxtrot Oscar from my thread.

What does that even mean?

On second thoughts, forget it. If ya can't work that out, yer gonna struggle with the mysteries of the universe.

[attofishpi]

HAAAHAHAHA!

Papa Oscar Age!

[Age]

Do me a favour Age, either tell us what your big and OBVIOUS idea is,

In regards to what exactly?

Any of these:

The actual Truth IS:

The Universe did NOT have a beginning.
The Universe is NOT expanding.
The Universe is made up of two fundamental things that have co-existed always.
At least two things are needed to create any thing.
The Universe is one thing that creates every thing.

or Foxtrot Oscar from my thread.

What does that even mean?

On second thoughts, forget it. If ya can't work that out, yer gonna struggle with the mysteries of the universe.

You are not getting out of this that easily. There are NO mysteries at all. I could have ASSUMED what you were saying, but I do NOT like to assume anything, so instead I asked you for clarification. If you do NOT want to be Truly Open and Honest, and want to speak in riddles, then so be it. But when discussing things of which you are obviously unaware of YET, then I suggest you LOOK and SPEAK from a Truly OPEN and Honest perspective. If what you Truly want is me to leave, then that says more about what you are TRYING TO say, then what I am actually saying AND pointing out here.

If the Universe had a beginning, then tell us how a "beginning" could even be possible. When, and if, you give an explanation, then we can LOOK INTO THAT in far more detail and expose the real Truth.
Until then, it is obvious that physical matter with 'space', a distance, between and/or around physical matter has always existed. The Universe Itself does NOT just come into existence and/or then ALL of It just disappears. The only thing that comes and goes is just the form of the Universe, this form is just changing, eternally.

If the Universe is expanding, then tell us how "expansion" could even be possible. When, and if, you give an explanation, then we can LOOK INTO THAT in far more detail and expose the real Truth. Until then, it is obvious that there is NO end, boundary, limit, wall, or whatever you human beings TRY TO say "limits" the distance of the Universe. Obviously there is NO way a human being could ever find a limit to the distance of the Universe. The only limit put on the distance of the Universe is by human beings own lack of imagination.

I have already discussed the two fundamental things, of which the Universe is made up of, that have co-existed forever. For there to come into existence a species with the intelligence, and the intellect, to work out that they are existing in A Universe, then there has to be the two fundamental things of matter and space. For these to exist at any one particular point, then they MUST OF both existed forever. Now, either one of them could have existed on their own "forever" and so the Universe could be made up of one thing only. However, there could NOT be any thing that could be made aware of this, so really it is NOT even worth discussing. The Universe HAS TO BE made up of at least two things. These two most basic of fundamental things are; space and matter. Without BOTH of them no thing could be created.

If any thing could be created from one thing, then tell us how "this" could be possible. When, and if, you give an explanation, then we can LOOK INTO THAT in more detail, and expose the real Truth.
Until then, it is obvious that at least two things are NEEDED in order to be able to create ANY thing. If ALL new knowledge comes from at least two things. NO human being just arrives at new knowledge. Only through the combination of two, previously gained, thoughts coming together new knowledge is created. Nothing new can be created from one thing only. Through the 'coming-together' of two of any thing, some thing new will always be created. The interaction of two things always creates some thing, anew. For every action there is a reaction, and with EVERY reaction some thing new is created.

The Universe defined as ALL-THERE-IS is one thing, which DOES create ALL things (other than Itself), but that is only because the Universe is made up of Its TWO most basic fundamental things of matter and space. The Universe CREATES Itself in shape and form but does NOT create Itself, as in having a "beginning". This continually changing in shape and form, always/eternally, comes from the constant interaction between matter, no matter how big nor small, continually "bumping into", interacting with, or reacting with each other FREELY, because of the space between and around matter. That is HOW the Universe behaves and creates Itself, the way that It does.

ALL very SIMPLE really. If, however, you disagree with or do NOT like any thing that I have written here, then feel free to comment and provide feedback. Also, I found BEFORE I say any thing is WRONG in "another's" writings it is best to gain clarification of what they are actually saying and meaning first. The confusion that can be and IS caused because of the many definitions just one word has can lead to things being taken out of context and being misconstrued and misunderstood very quickly.

[Age]

HAAAHAHAHA!

Papa Oscar Age!

What does this mean also?