# Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason

Page 4 - 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.

#### Atlan0001

CM and Gib,

Click on each of the three illustrations and see the "interior lines" of connection.

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

Then click on the illustration in this one and back to those three illustrations.

Think about curving lines and straight lines! About "interior lines!" About squaring circles interior to the circle. About cubing in 'tesseract' the hypersphere, interior to the sphere. About the straight-line radius distant from the hub of a wagon wheel to the curvature, and/or curvatures, of the rim of the wheel, 1/2 the diameter of the circle in every direction of the circle from the hub (the hub: Hawking's "Grand Central Station of Universe (U).")

Quantum (discrete quanta)
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Quantum (discrete quanta)

And more! about light's coordinate point [past (t=+1)-future (t=-1)] histories' SPACETIME versus a spontaneous entangling concurrent REALTIME (t=0) instant . . . the always local-relative "visible universe" versus the non-local, non-relative, "invisible universe" that might just be close enough to smack you in your local-relativity, in the mirror, in the face, and/or in the Earth, before you see and know its around.

Last edited:

#### Gibsense

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.

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?
The statement would appear to be an error. We are not just 3D. We call it spacetime and is 4D. We cannot appreciate time without a 4D space called spacetime. Well anyway we are not just 3D

#### Gibsense

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

#### Catastrophe

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

That is a serious question. Nevertheless, you will interpret it as you wish. <Sigh>

Cat

Last edited:

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Gibsense, OK. . . . . . . which can be flicked.

Cat

#### Atlan0001

By the way, they aren't 3-d entities, they are in the relative classical world, sequenced 2-dimensional pages (sequenced 2-dimensional SPACETIME time-frame instances out of the spontaneous entangling concurrent REALTIME NOW (T=0) instant). At once, "emergent SPACE" (to an "Infinite MULTIVERSE Universe'"(U) . . . to an infinite whole of 'Mandelbrot Set'); Flat to an infinite density of an infinite "Flatland" (an Abyss / Void / Vacuum / Aether, omni-directionally infinitesimal if not zero-'g' ("little-g"))!

Last edited:

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
The statement would appear to be an error. We are not just 3D. We call it spacetime and is 4D. We cannot appreciate time without a 4D space called spacetime. Well anyway we are not just 3D

I stand by this. My opinion is that a flatlander can appreciate time in his 2D, as we can appreciate time in our 3D (space dimensions).

My apologies for the slightly sloppy wording. However, I think that the intent is clear, as:
"My opinion is that a flatlander can appreciate time in his 2D (+ time universe), as we can appreciate time in our 3D (space dimensions)( + time), or, our 3 space + 1 time = (spacetime) observed universe. I think the inclusion of observed would have allowed a little flexibility.

I think most of us, still, incorrectly, sometimes separate spacetime, but you are completely correct in pointing out the inaccuracy on my part.

Cat

#### Gibsense

My apologies for the slightly sloppy wording. However, I think that the intent is clear, as:
"My opinion is that a flatlander can appreciate time in his 2D (+ time universe), as we can appreciate time in our 3D (space dimensions)( + time), or, our 3 space + 1 time = (spacetime) observed universe. I think the inclusion of observed would have allowed a little flexibility.
Ah! I see, I should have interpreted it to mean that a 2D flatlander could have time as a result of living in 3D space. I agree. The extra dimension provides the time for the hypothetical 2D flatlander, as per the cartoon analogy. Apologies for the misunderstanding!

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Gibsense, no worries. It was my faulty enunciation that caused the problem in the first place!

Cat

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Having seen your #83 again, I think that there still be a slight misunderstanding, but first let me address a question of spelling. There are many different versions of plain and plane, and I think that I have been using plain incorrectly.

Plain has, inter alia, two meanings - a plain or obvious, simple fact, and a flat area of territory in geography. Plane can mean an aeroplane, strictly 'plane, but also means a flat area in geometry.

The definition of a plane surface is: A two-dimensional and a perfectly flat surface which extends in all directions is known as a plane surface. A plane extends infinitely in two dimensions with no thickness. For e. g., a coordinate plane is an example of a plane surface.

So I shall use plane in the present context.

Now, to #83.

I should have interpreted it to mean that a 2D flatlander could have time as a result of living in 3D space.

I am a little confused about the meaning of this, but it probably does not affect the analogy.

My intention is that the flatlander lives in a two dimensional surface, where he experiences time. In my view there is no intervention whatsoever of a 3rd space dimension.
If a sphere or ball passes through flatland (meaning perpendicularly to the surface), there is, first of all, a point of contact, viewed as a dot. To the flatlander (remaining stationery) he first perceives a dot, which becomes an extending line. To us, we would see the sphere touch the surface, then expand to a circular section. The flatlander would see the circle edge on as a line. As the sphere passes more than half way through, the line would shrink back to a dot, and then disappear. WE would see the sphere passing through the plane.

A mobile flatlander would be able to perambulate around the "line", which would, in fact, be a circle on Flatland. A circle, seen edge on, is, of course, a line.

Thus, whilst we see the occurrence in 3 space dimensions, the flatlander has no comprehension, or involvement, with a third dimension. Time, for him, exists in an analogous manner as for us.
We do not postulate a 4th space dimension to perceive - at least, not in the simple sense in which I am framing the analogy.

Anyway, as I stated, I don't think this finessing has much effect on the analogy, and it seems unnecessarily complicated to involve the flatlander in a 3rd space dimension. Indeed, would he still be a flatlander?

Cat

#### Catastrophe

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

Plain and plane both refer to flat areas.
Plane refers to a geometrical surface.
Plain refers to a mostly flat, geographical area, which may contain trees, lakes, and other features.

As I stated before, I cannot see that it would do any harm to view Flatland as concentric spheres, passing through time, but this is not the intention. The sphere (spherical surface) I am defining as Flatland, and this spherical surface IS the Flatland universe, including, of course, time.
This view would obviate any view of a flatlander having any comprehension whatsoever.
Being a simple analogy, designed for the purpose of investigating a point of view, it is not intended to withstand minute dissection, seeking hidden shades of meaning.

One might wish to redefine the model, such that the spherical surface represented the 2D universe travelling 'through' a time dimension, but, to me, this only complicates matters, and invites problems of trying to examine too closely, what is space and what is time, in their roles as separate ingredients of spacetime. It is easier to see the sphere as the entire Flatland universe, and see the increasing size of spheres as the viewpoint of the being with extra dimensional appreciation. It would mean nothing to the flatlander, who would judge expansion of HIS universe by the expanding area of the surface.

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

Ah! I see, I should have interpreted it to mean that a 2D flatlander could have time as a result of living in 3D space. I agree. The extra dimension provides the time for the hypothetical 2D flatlander, as per the cartoon analogy. Apologies for the misunderstanding!
As 'String Theory' informs us, a being that exists in a 2-d universe is a vibratory (+1/-1) 1-d ring-string or stick being. As 'Chaos Theory' fractality informs us, there is an infinite" breadth" of dimensionality to the (infinitesimally) infinite '0'-point "depth" of the 2-d universe. That omni-dimensional '0'-point is the multi-dimensional 'spatial' dimension in all its relativity of quantum-discrete quanta! Vibration (+1/-1), aka "diamond hard quality" (so to speak) "quantum fluctuation(s)" (+1/-1), in the 1-d ring-string or stick being of the Flatland Universe is the singularly, thus eternally, primal dimension of time's "tune", er, "physicality"! The (+1/-1) "flip sides" of the 2-d / 1-d "Mobius Strip"!

Last edited:

#### Gibsense

This view would obviate any view of a flatlander having any comprehension whatsoever.
Being a simple analogy, designed for the purpose of investigating a point of view, it is not intended to withstand minute dissection, seeking hidden shades of meaning.
A brick might be used to illustrate 3D but a passer-by might use it to break a window or be part of a wall. Its application is still real.
As I stated before, I cannot see that it would do any harm to view Flatland as concentric spheres, passing through time, but this is not the intention. The sphere (spherical surface) I am defining as Flatland, and this spherical surface IS the Flatland universe, including, of course, time.
The use of concentric spheres in this context would be to explain time. Without the idea of expansion (illustrated by concentric spheres - although the process would be smooth ), there is no explanation as to how time can occur. That's the point " What causes time?" Answer: expansion; the process.

#### Atlan0001

"'What causes time?' 'Answer: expansion; the process.'" ????

I repeat (#76):
--------------
--------------

And #658, "From a drop of water...."
--------------

Last edited:

#### Gibsense

If the density is increased around a point in a 3-dimensional space, the space will curve but not in a 4th dimension, its three dimensions are sufficient for this. A 3-dimensional space therefore has the ability to fold back on itself without the need for a 4th. Just imagine an infinity of superimposed curved planes. Each will produce a curvature in the dimension orthogonal to it and ultimately there is no need for a 4th vector.
It should be seen like this:
But it is not 3D space that is 'distorted' it is spacetime i.e. 4 dimensional spacetime. To make your case you need to extend relativity somehow in a way that gives relativity results and makes your case as well

#### George²

Time would not be the 3rd dimension but be a process
No. Time is not process. An invented unit for measuring processes. Processes developing regardless of whether they are observed and measured. But man needs this measurement, so he has invented, through his imagination, units with which to do it. The unit of measure called "time" is imaginary, not something that exists.

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
A brick might be used to illustrate 3D but a passer-by might use it to break a window or be part of a wall. Its application is still real.

The use of concentric spheres in this context would be to explain time. Without the idea of expansion (illustrated by concentric spheres - although the process would be smooth ), there is no explanation as to how time can occur. That's the point " What causes time?" Answer: expansion; the process.

Gibsense, sadly what is happening is what I hoped would not happen. That is perhaps to lose the wood in the trees? I started with a single sphere. That sphere represented the entire space-time (observed) universe of the flatlander. I then thought of it as expanding universe, and "drew" more spheres.
But NOT with the idea of representing the flatlander's time.
Once you accept this, then you are very nearly correct. It will also explain the lack of need of a third space dimension.

All through the above, I have tried to emphasise the different perspectives of flatlander, and D+ observer. I could have used the concentric spheres to signify expansion of the flatlander's 2D space through time, but you, yourself, did not like the divergence from spacetime, if I understood you correctly?

In my mind, in forming the analogy, I always held to the sphere being the flatlander's observable universe. I am not representing a flatlander's conscious change with time.

What I am representing is the viewpoint of the D+ observer, whose observable universe is vastly more complex than that of the flatlander. You may recall my suggesting that D+'s observable universe could contain trillions of flatlander observable universes? You could see this in terms of flatlander time, but D+ time would be much more sophisticated.

Imagine that D+ time could easily, according to the analogy, contain trillions of flatlander observable universes, each with its own isolated, completely independent time frames (OK, more correctly, each of its own spacetimes, every one completely cut off for ever - separated into their own observable universes.

I do not want to use the simple word 'time' to suggest any possible connection between D+ TIME and flatlander 'time'. Does that help to clarify my viewpoint?

Cat

It seems necessary, at this point to speak of 'times', but they cannot be easily discussed as spacetimes at this point. You can put them back together if you wish, but, for this simple analogy, it seems much more understandable to talk in 'times'.

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

Einstein simply cannot escape the predicted break down of his own universe of relativity!

Quantum (discrete quanta)
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Quantum (discrete quanta)

#### Classical Motion

What ever time is, it is not sensed and does not appear until or unless motion occurs. So whether time exists when no motion occurs, can never be known. But it appears to be a byproduct of motion along with displacement.

And we can only reference time to physical displacement. A motion.

Motion has to be extremely ordered in order for time to be a consistent measurement. Time is constant when ratio-d. The constant of time makes motion obey the proportion of angle and velocity..

No precision or accuracy without set time. Comparisons can not be make without it.

No references included.

#### Atlan0001

Maybe we reference time to the one thing that has no "mass" physical "motion" to it whatsoever, the "Grand Central Station" exact center "position" (thus the infinity (the infinities) of center ('c')) of Universe (U) and universe (u).

Once more, it "has no 'mass' physical 'motion' to it whatsoever...."! The only entity, probably, in and of the universe that has no mass and no mass motion to it. It is a multiplex entity though.

Last edited:

#### Gibsense

No. Time is not process. An invented unit for measuring processes. Processes developing regardless of whether they are observed and measured. But man needs this measurement, so he has invented, through his imagination, units with which to do it. The unit of measure called "time" is imaginary, not something that exists.
Like an inch? Like a kilogram? Like MPH? Like degrees C, like pressure, etc.?

Catastrophe

#### George²

Like an inch? Like a kilogram? Like MPH? Like degrees C, like pressure, etc.?
Yes, in the sense of a measure, a value for something. Characteristic, parameter.

#### Gibsense

Yes, in the sense of a measure, a value for something. Characteristic, parameter.
You disputed the idea of time as a process (rather than a specific dimension) by using the nature of measurement to challenge the idea. If we accept that then we should logically dispute weight, speed, temperature etc or the more logical thing: Accept that time as a process is back under consideration

#### George²

You disputed the idea of time as a process (rather than a specific dimension) by using the nature of measurement to challenge the idea. If we accept that then we should logically dispute weight, speed, temperature etc or the more logical thing: Accept that time as a process is back under consideration
I'm not arguing about anything. Just correcting such obvious mistakes. Lest you be disappointed after reading 1000 time travel fantasy novels that are of course impossible. The situation is exactly the same with edge science, which claims that time reverses its course for objects in motion and they age more slowly. This is nonsense. There are certainly ways to slow down aging, but they are different than getting on a rocket and being accelerated near C.

#### Gibsense

I'm not arguing about anything. Just correcting such obvious mistakes. Lest you be disappointed after reading 1000 time travel fantasy novels that are of course impossible. The situation is exactly the same with edge science, which claims that time reverses its course for objects in motion and they age more slowly. This is nonsense. There are certainly ways to slow down aging, but they are different than getting on a rocket and being accelerated near C.
The "edge science" is old hat. It is proven over and over. Sat Navs would not work without it. If you think it is fantasy then please update. Crumbs if you find that hard goodness knows what you would make of Quantum Mechanics. Seriously have a read of 'Relativity'. At first it will mean not a lot. Keep trying and gradually you will come to understand at least the ideas involved. It is great fun and is real - unlike most of the nonsense taking place in this world.

Replies
97
Views
20K
Replies
21
Views
5K
Replies
20
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K