Yes exactly true, this would be the case. I keep it a bit simpler using distance rather than area but area is more complete for the Flatlander realityD+ sees linear expansion of r, but flatlander sees expansion per r^2.
Yes exactly true, this would be the case. I keep it a bit simpler using distance rather than area but area is more complete for the Flatlander realityD+ sees linear expansion of r, but flatlander sees expansion per r^2.
Suppose we assume for simplicity the 2D flatlander Universe. Its world is described by 2 dimensions a x b to give area. The D+ observer knows another dimension say 'd'. So D+ understands the volume. Even so, D+ recognises distance. 3 Dimensions.Is it not the case that distance, r, experienced by D+, is area the flatlander's universe?
Ah, I read this ' out of turn'. That statement I would challenge. The flatlander could conceive of a circle. His mathematicians might suggest an extra dimension at right angles. They might then be able to imagine a vertical circle passing through their plain—a dot changing to an expanding line and then shrinking before disappearing.To flat, it is an intrinsic part of "all there is". A dimension beyond his understanding.
There is no other dimensionality, no outside dimensionality to Flatland, other than 0-point and 1-d string, directions of and in magnitudes . . .
breadths and depths of Flatland (MULTIVERSE) Universe magnitudes to infinities . . . of "Mandelbrot Set."
Suppose we assume for simplicity the 2D flatlander Universe. Its world is described by 2 dimensions a x b to give area. The D+ observer knows another dimension say 'd'. So D+ understands the volume. Even so, D+ recognises distance. 3 Dimensions.
Extending the logic we can see both the flatlander and the D+ recognise 'a' and 'b' as distances. Each is agreed (between them) as the same 'a' and 'b'. Adding 'd' to give a volume is still a distance, not an area. Adding a further dimension still is a distance.
But maybe I misunderstand
To conceive of a sphere passing through their plain would be much more difficult to explain and understand; their mathematicians would need to add another spatial dimension. But, our guys have managed it -
Each is agreed (between them) as the same 'a' and 'b'. Adding 'd' to give a volume is still a distance, not an area. Adding a further dimension still is a distance.
The science:
By measuring about 2,400 Cepheid stars in 19 galaxies and comparing the observed brightness of both star types, they accurately measured their true brightness and calculated distances to roughly 300 Type Ia supernovae in far-flung galaxies.
The team compared those distances with the expansion of space as measured by the stretching of light from receding galaxies. They used these two values to calculate how fast the universe expands with time, or the Hubble constant.
The error: An assumption that the stretching of light from receding galaxies was due mostly to the expansion of space.
The alternative: The redshift (light stretching) observed was largely due to time dilation.
The logic: The spherical nature of the universe at extreme distances approaching t=0 introduces extreme curvature. The curvature acts to observe in much the same way as the spatial curvature on approaching a black hole. In both cases, space and time are rotated and time dilation occurs (at t=0 the rotation is 90 degrees).
NB I think the major misunderstandings are about:
1. That time has a specific dimension; this is not correct. There are 4 spatial dimensions. Time can 'act' in any direction of the 4 allowing the other 3 to be 3D space. However, do remember the radius is proper 'cosmic' time history and the radii of a sphere point in all possible directions of 4D space - I am referencing a hypersphere (a type of sphere)
2. That our position (on the sphere) is not unique. It is relative. If you moved a few billion light-years around the sphere t=0 would have shifted correspondingly (at 90 degrees to your time and space). It, t=0, results from curvature - not an approach to the BB. (similar to space curvature at a black hole)
3. The assertion that hyperspherical space curvature produces time dilation is only special relativity applied on a large scale (ignoring the effect of mass and relying on a homogenous nature of the universe).
4. Time is not a dimension but a process acting on the universe in any of 4 spatial dimensions but - within a hypersphere - in a radial direction primarily (cosmic/proper time) and rotated from the radial by speed. IMO
5. Time (locally) always acts at 90 degrees to the local space including where space is shaped by mass
There is only a "universal now" and by time i mean a local rate at which change can happen.What do you mean by "time"? Universal time? No such thing.
Even with clocks, time is subjective for every individual.
Wake up and know exactly how long you have slept, without a clock.
Cat
TIME is a duration. It has a beginning and an end. And it's rate is constant.
I agree sort of. It's similar to "The Big Bang Centre is Everywhere".There is no clock anywhere in the universe but one only that constantly keeps the correct time (universally spontaneous (t=0) REALTIME NOW (t=0) instant).