# Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason

Page 3 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

#### Gibsense

There are no 4 spatial dimensions. This is an idea that I also had a while ago, but this is not the case. There are 3 vector dimensions. And then there is a time or density scalar.
You miss the point. Spacetime has 4 Dimensions. All 4 are warped (the impact on time is not an assumption). 'Models' of the universe that assume 4 Dimensions explain reality to an extreme degree.
Nothing I have suggested conflicts with the facts so far as I can determine (although I am about to change my opinion on some aspects of time). However, it is important to recognise what science has established so far - but if we wish to challenge whole concepts we need to produce a good argument with the evidence.

Assertion on its own is not too useful.

#### Gibsense

Atlan0001 has already put his finger on 'time' in an interesting way. He said to remember the book where you flip the pages and a figure or cartoon does moving stuff.

So a 2D flatlander would need a stack of 2d 'pages' (that is a third dimension) to experience time. They would not know about the 3rd dimension (except via brilliant science) but would feel the passage of time. They would have to exist in 3D space to have time.
Time would not be the 3rd dimension but be a process occurring in a 3rd dimension.

This is the idea I have been trying to get across for us in our 3D space and experiencing time (from a process utilising a 4th dimension). I avoid infinity by curvature (n-spheres)

#### Atlan0001

I agree sort of. It's similar to "The Big Bang Centre is Everywhere".
Sure individual time variation is described by relativity but that doesn't mean there is no valid time reference from the point of view of D+ (the hyperdimensional 4D person)
Don't get things backwards, Gib. The '0'-point portal singularity (ergo, gravity's state of "quantum entanglement" (displayed big time in the math and the illustrations of "Big 'G'")) dimension is the omni-dimensional, the open system (there is no "one world" without two or more worlds). The fourth dimension is [the close of the system] to a closed system in ("Mirror Event Horizon") "the one Ring (in 'reality', immeasurable : curve-circle shape (in quantum fluctuation : string vibration : "Mobius Strip")) to rule them all" (as J. R. Tolkien might have put it). So, again, don't get it backwards. Far, far, too many do who cannot, or will not, think omni-dimensionally (fundamental binary base2 '0' (null unity (Q(DQ))) and/or '1' (unity))!

Again! "0-point portal singularity" into the asymptote infinities (fractal zooms universe structure) of 'Mandelbrot Set' MULTIVERSE Universe!

And when we break out into the universe, if we break out into the universe, we will be going there! The new, raw, alien, harsh and forbidding frontier universe will breed a new Mankind (in the heat of the forge, forge the 'metal', the 'steel', in and of a new Mankind)!

Last edited:

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Are you suggesting that there is an absolute time scale?

Cat

#### Atlan0001

Are you suggesting that there is an absolute time scale?

Cat
Cat, why do you bother to ask when it is so obvious that I'm stating there is a base diamond-like quality of hardness of rigidity (so to speak) to a spontaneous entangling concurrent REALTIME NOW t=0 (eternal) instant?! It is the quantum hardness (light's coordinate point past-future histories' SPACETIME being like glass and diamonds shattering into shards and bits (or is it qubits ?)) of the universe and SPACE is the equal but opposite softness . . . thankfully only too manipulatively soft. You are apparently ignoring Einstein's ACTUAL destination during his "mind's eye" trip to the speed of light, which turned out (turns out) to be Hawking's "Grand Central Station of the Universe (U)" with that strictly [one-of-a-kind] special 'Clock' of the Universe (U) overhanging its center of all crossing.

Physicists, and sci-fi authors like Arthur C. Clarke, mainly (as I see these things), over the last century, had them wrongly reversed, hard and rigid metric space and soft and pliable rubber-band-like quality time! SPACETIME is "observable universe" hologram holography only! Emergent SPACE (hyperspace, warp space, wormhole or tunnel, or JUMP SPACE) cannot possibly be observed! Spontaneous entangling concurrent REALTIME NOW t=0 (eternal) instant is the physical (time) tune the universes (u), including "we", march to (quantum fluctuate to) (string vibrate to) (dance to) within the fundamental "Life Force" animation of it all!

Last edited:

#### externo

You miss the point. Spacetime has 4 Dimensions. All 4 are warped (the impact on time is not an assumption). 'Models' of the universe that assume 4 Dimensions explain reality to an extreme degree.
Nothing I have suggested conflicts with the facts so far as I can determine (although I am about to change my opinion on some aspects of time). However, it is important to recognise what science has established so far - but if we wish to challenge whole concepts we need to produce a good argument with the evidence.

Assertion on its own is not too useful.
I don't speak without basis. Spacetime was discovered by Hamilton in 1843 in the form of quaternions. Maxwell tried to write his equations in the form of quaternions. He lacked the knowledge of relativity to fully succeed.
I gave you links and information so you can take the right path.
I've finished asking myself these questions, spacetime is three vector dimensions (space) and one scalar dimension (time). To progress and understand, you have to skim through the work available on the Internet. I started from the idea that the universe is spherical and that spacetime has a Euclidean metric and then spent a lot of time studying the work in that direction.

The quaternions form a space which is like a 3-dimensional stereographic projection of a 4-dimensional space.

Much of the interesting geometry of the 3-sphere stems from the fact that the 3-sphere has a natural Lie group structure given by quaternion multiplication (see the section below on group structure).

This description as the quaternions of norm one identifies the 3-sphere with the versors in the quaternion division ring. Just as the unit circle is important for planar polar coordinates, so the 3-sphere is important in the polar view of 4-space involved in quaternion multiplication. See polar decomposition of a quaternion for details of this development of the three-sphere. This view of the 3-sphere is the basis for the study of elliptic space as developed by Georges Lemaître.[1]

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
externo,

I started from the idea that the universe is spherical

The only way any "universe" (that is just a word, with different meanings from different viewpoints) can be spherical, is suggested by the flatlander analogy. Without that, how do you answer the question "expanding into what"?

Cat

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Of course, I refer to a sphere with a two dimensional surface.

In mathematics, a 3-sphere, glome or hypersphere is a higher-dimensional analogue of a sphere. In 4-dimensional Euclidean space, it is the set of points equidistant from a fixed central point. Analogous to how the boundary of a ball in three dimensions is an ordinary sphere (or 2-sphere, a two-dimensional surface), the boundary of a ball in four dimensions (a gongyl) is a 3-sphere (a 3-dimensional "surface"). Topologically, a 3-sphere is an example of a 3-manifold, and it is also an n-sphere.

Cat

#### Classical Motion

Time is not a flux. It's singular. It sequences and consistently orders reality. All reality including physicality.

Time glues all motion into one frame. The perpetual motion frame. Corralled with time. Not space.

Your measurements and rational for shift is wrong. Your ideas of light is wrong. Your idea of gravity is wrong. Your idea of mass is wrong. Your insane idea of space is wrong.

ALL BASIC ERRORS.

Start over. Light is an inverted duty cycle.......not a wave.

You need to reconsider light in order to clear your view. And a clear view will allow you to not only see much farther, you can achieve much more resolution and measurement.

Use an inverted duty cycle shift when looking at the stars.

Any photon detected with inertial mass will be distorted. That's what a photon does, it distorts mass. Mass bounces and distorts photon velocity, into heat.

A non inertial detector is needed for light measurement. And light shift measurement.

Have you ever watch a wind-vein? Mass is like a wind-vein with a rubber band on it. The wind turns it, but the rubber band resets it That reset distorts the next incoming photon.

We need a detector that will NOT reset. Only then can we time and sample light.

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Many people have differing opinions. They are not all rude about it.

Cat

#### Classical Motion

Pardon me, didn't mean to be insulting with the term "your". The modern scientific opinion was the owner of your. Not anyone personally. It was a collective your.

I can only text like I talk. Never had any training. And only took up texting and riten in later years.

And I can only read as fast as I can talk. No speed reading for me. As a matter of fact, I have to re-read several times to get this stuff......or try to get this stuff.

It's hard to put tone in text. For me. Some metaphors have to be heard to be recognized. Especially with my lack of grammar. And all that English school class stuff.

Still trying to learn this tool. A little rough. I'm sure I'll temper.

In physics everyone is looking for clarity but I think we are looking in the wrong pool. The pool we concept can't be cleared. We need a new concept because something HUGE is wrong with this one.

We are chasing illusions. Illusions manufactured with distorted measurements.

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Gibsense, I do not understand this assertion:

So a 2D flatlander would need a stack of 2d 'pages' (that is a third dimension) to experience time.

A 2D might observe his 2D surroundings without needing to look up into the sky.
Can he not observe a spot becoming a line, growing up to a maximum, and then declining to a spot, and disappearing, in front of him?

Requiring a stack of 2D 'pages' assumes that each 'page' is static, without change, thus without time, and so begs the question.

Cat

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
CM, it is not as if you used the word only once.

Your measurements and rational for shift is wrong. Your ideas of light is wrong. Your idea of gravity is wrong. Your idea of mass is wrong. Your insane idea of space is wrong.

Nevertheless, you have my forgiveness, especially as English does not seem to be your first language. Please be more careful towards other people.

Cat

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

Classical Motion,

The one thing in all your posts I like to no end is your constant finish that should always be remembered, "Light is only half of what you think it is."
-------------------------

"Communication across the revolutionary divide is inevitably partial." -- Thomas S. Kuhn.

#### Classical Motion

Duty cycle is a ratio of presence to non presence. Mostly in the electrical engineering to transfer power. By turning power on and off. The call it pulse modulation. But this dynamic can be used for many other functions.

The reference for the ratio is the "on" time. A 50% duty cycle would be on time equal to off time.

We control that ratio with the on time.

An inverted duty cycle would be a duty cycle controlled with the off time. And the on time remains constant.

The frequency of a duty cycle is much different than the frequency of a wave.

The frequency of a wave is one positive alternation plus one negative alternation. These alternations are equal in duration.

BUT the frequency of a duty cycle is one on time plus one off time. The on time is constant and the off time depends on the motion of the emitter. If the emitter is coming at you, the off time is less than the on time. If the emitter is moving away, the off time is longer than the on time. If the emitter has no relative motion the duty cycle is 50%.

ONLY the off time varies with motion, not the on time.

A man made duty pulse is rectangled. A light pulse is sawtooth. One half of a rectangle.

The duty cycle of light is a duration duty cycle......not a power or energy duty cycle .

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

Merriam-Webster: Duty: #5. a and b.

#### Classical Motion

Atlan, not to get to deep in the weeds but it's half of a half. Not only half the time, but half the power, because a sawtooth is half a rectangle.

It's down to a quarter.

#### Atlan0001

Atlan, not to get to deep in the weeds but it's half of a half. Not only half the time, but half the power, because a sawtooth is half a rectangle.

It's down to a quarter.
"Down to a quarter," then an eighth, and so on, is relative. '0', '1', '1' divided by binary base 2 (1/2) (fundamental binary base2), is not. Nor is the other way of seeing it, ((+1) (-1)) = 1/0 . . . (((+1) |0| (-1)) = 1/0).

For all its infinities of fractal zooming, the 'Mandelbrot Set' is still primally, primarily, primordially, an infinitely dense, 'Abyss' voided, "set" quantum (discrete quanta) after all.

Last edited:

#### Gibsense

A 2D might observe his 2D surroundings without needing to look up into the sky.
Can he not observe a spot becoming a line, growing up to a maximum, and then declining to a spot, and disappearing, in front of him?

Requiring a stack of 2D 'pages' assumes that each 'page' is static, without change, thus without time, and so begs the question.
Ok, you must have missed Atlan0001 's comment about cartoon figures (years ago when we were kids) seemingly moving (diving into swimming or running etc.) done by individual pages each showing a slightly different position. You made the figure appear in action by flicking the pages! Disney Style Cartoon making.
Whatever -
• Each page of a pile of pages = say 1 second. 60 pages = 1 minute. It represents action in time
• The 2D flatlander exists on a plain at the bottom of the pile
• The pile of pages is vertical at 90 degrees to the 2D flatlander pile and therefore a 3rd dimension
• If the 'action' were projected onto the 2D plain by a 3D person flicking through the pages the flatlander would perceive the action.
• The vertical stack of pages are the third dimension but it is the process (the action of flicking) that simulates time and not the dimension.
• My assertion is that time is not the fourth dimension but is a process happening in a 4D space

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Gibsense, I posted:

A 2D might observe his 2D surroundings without needing to look up into the sky.
Can he not observe a spot becoming a line, growing up to a maximum, and then declining to a spot, and disappearing, in front of him?

I stand by this. My opinion is that a flatlander can appreciate time in is 2D, as we can appreciate time in our 3D (space dimensions). Why not?

We'll just amicably agree to differ.

Cat

#### Atlan0001

Ok, you must have missed Atlan0001 's comment about cartoon figures (years ago when we were kids) seemingly moving (diving into swimming or running etc.) done by individual pages each showing a slightly different position. You made the figure appear in action by flicking the pages! Disney Style Cartoon making.
Whatever -
• Each page of a pile of pages = say 1 second. 60 pages = 1 minute. It represents action in time
• The 2D flatlander exists on a plain at the bottom of the pile
• The pile of pages is vertical at 90 degrees to the 2D flatlander pile and therefore a 3rd dimension
• If the 'action' were projected onto the 2D plain by a 3D person flicking through the pages the flatlander would perceive the action.
• The vertical stack of pages are the third dimension but it is the process (the action of flicking) that simulates time and not the dimension.
• My assertion is that time is not the fourth dimension but is a process happening in a 4D space
I missed nothing, CM. I can either stand the book of frames, of pages (relatively) vertically on end or lay it (relatively) horizontally flat. It will always be the same book of same frames, same pages (the end of the story the beginning and the beginning of the story the end . . . nicely, integrally, wrapped and integrally eternally wrapping, back to front, and front to back . . . "the perfect ending" (t=0) in "endless beginning" (t=0))!

Last edited:

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
There seems to be an assumption that each "page" is static, and can be flicked in a time dimension.

Do you correspondingly propose that our world is made of corresponding 3D static entities, which (by analogy) can be "flicked", in our time dimension?

If not, why not?

Cat

#### Atlan0001

CM and Gib,

You should not see, think, the universe in only one line of universe . . . particularly when the multiple lines of universe are so differently shaped and placed, one from another.
===============

===============

===============

Last edited:

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Atlan,

I would appreciate a reply to #72, please.

Cat

#### Atlan0001

Not a chance, Cat! And you well know why! You want an answer, read all my previous posts on this forum. You try to be a master of indirection and I am a master at reading between and behind lines, reading and seeing the psychology, from seventy years of paying attention, schooling and careers involving it, plus being a close student of history and the people (I read the people) and peoples of history. Don't try it again on me!

Replies
96
Views
7K
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
955
Replies
4
Views
1K