Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason

[Gibsense]

. Lest you be disappointed after reading 1000 time travel fantasy novels that are of course impossible

It is interesting that you should raise Time Travel. Most novels are as you say fun but fantasy. Yes, nonsense; thereal situation is that hopping back to the next timewave will take you back but into a different version of this universe where you can happily kill off your ancestors without dissappearing.

 

[Atlan0001]

It is interesting that you should raise Time Travel. Most novels are as you say fun but fantasy. Yes, nonsense; thereal situation is that hopping back to the next timewave will take you back but into a different version of this universe where you can happily kill off your ancestors without dissappearing.

Infinities of rounding horizon universes present you with such certainties of discovering self-similarities . . . providing you could travel the infinitely vast distances of differences in variation rounding only then, finally, back to them. You accidentally wipe out an exact duplicate of your ancestorial line, and live. Why do you live? Because it is not your direct line but an [almost[ exact duplicate in a parallel universe of your direct line. The parallel line universe existing due to the existence of infinity, of infinities, rather than your proprietary individual universe line duplicated to infinity only in the infinity of mirror duplication (thus in fact all of the duplicates being a naked singularity of one), makes the difference.

As far as the naked singularity of your own line, you wouldn't get past its gateway being automatically anti-matter universe to your matter universe! The other side of the coin of a 2-d / 1-d (-/+) 'Mobius Strip' and your fatal (mirroring) mistake at the surface of the one kind of mirror universe you would not cross the boundary into for meeting and running head on into your oncoming 'anti-matter self' at, in, the gateway surface of the mirror! There is no passing through or around yourself (your anti-self) there!

 

[externo]

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

4-D curved spacetime is a mathematical representation, not a physical geometry. There is a metric form called the Painlevé-Gullstrand coordinates which is the true physical representation. This solution says that the axis of time tilts with space in a gravitational field and always remains orthogonal to it.

The metric is like this: ds² = -dT² + (dr +g dT)²
Therefore the axes dT and dr + gdT remain orthogonal.
dT is the local time axis, dr is the spatial horizontal axis outside the gravitational field, and dr + gdT is the spatial axis within the gravitational field.

 

[Catastrophe]

Einstein field equations - Wikipedia

The solution was proposed independently by Paul Painlevé in 1921 [1] and Allvar Gullstrand[2] in 1922. It was not explicitly shown that these solutions were simply coordinate transformations of the usual Schwarzschild solution until 1933 in Lemaître's paper,[3] although Einstein immediately believed that to be true.

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

This solution says that the axis of time tilts with space in a gravitational field and always remains orthogonal to it.

Yes, a simple drawing in my post Gravity...... illustrated the point. And orthogonal within a black hole is why the star shrinks but does not point to a singularity (as most assume). As time near the star (at the bottom of the 'well' ) does not point in the direction of time exterior to the black hole (as with non-blackhole stars) the star becomes detached from our universe.

In normal Gravity situations, time is orthogonally pointing inward and this together with time at the base of the well (again orthogonal) pointing in the direction of 'normal' time then the well shape is maintained as time progresses. In the case of a black hole the basin shape becomes a tunnel and the star is left behind in time. It detaches maybe. Perhaps at this point time (as maybe aeons pass outside - or not) is recovered but pointing outward as per our universe (but produces a new universe).

All this speculation arises from the principle that time is orthogonal to space (nothing controversial there!)

 

[externo]

Yes, a simple drawing in my post Gravity...... illustrated the point. And orthogonal within a black hole is why the star shrinks but does not point to a singularity (as most assume). As time near the star (at the bottom of the 'well' ) does not point in the direction of time exterior to the black hole (as with non-blackhole stars) the star becomes detached from our universe.

In normal Gravity situations, time is orthogonally pointing inward and this together with time at the base of the well (again orthogonal) pointing in the direction of 'normal' time then the well shape is maintained as time progresses. In the case of a black hole the basin shape becomes a tunnel and the star is left behind in time. It detaches maybe. Perhaps at this point time (as maybe aeons pass outside - or not) is recovered but pointing outward as per our universe (but produces a new universe).

All this speculation arises from the principle that time is orthogonal to space (nothing controversial there!)

I also think that the star of the black hole is on the other side of the tunnel, and not as mainstream science says, that there is a singularity in the horizontal direction, because space follows the tunnel. But the star is stuck there, there is no link to another universe. It's only a small pocket where time locally passes in reverse.

Coming back to the question, mainreal physics claims that space curves in a virtual 5th dimension w. But in the Painlevé coordinates we see that space curves in local time, which then corresponds precisely to the dimension w, and as this is reality, the other coordinate systems are only geometric deformations. However, as time is a scalar of density and not the vector that Minkowski speaks of, we have the three dimensions of spaces curved using density.

Mainstream science does not understand geometry correctly, it makes crude figures, like this:

Gullstrand–Painlevé coordinates - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

On the horizon (at 2), the world line of the free-falling object is tilted at 45° and not 90° because the diagram does not reproduce the tilt of the local time axis. Normally the faller's worldline is the local time axis, but in this diagram the local time axis is represented vertically and is the ordinate. So they do not see that space is sloping and that the horizon cannot be crossed horizontally, they pretend that the faller crosses the horizon as shown on the diagram and that the world line becomes horizontal on the singularity only . It looks like they're doing it on purpose, because the math equation clearly states that the time axis should tilt. They simply do not represent the geometry indicated by the equation.

 

[Gibsense]

4-D curved spacetime is a mathematical representation, not a physical geometry. There is a metric form called the Painlevé-Gullstrand coordinates which is the true physical representation. This solution says that the axis of time tilts with space in a gravitational field and always remains orthogonal to it.

That solution is the same as my statement(s). Time is always orthogonal to space (by definition in a 4 dimensional space). An assertion that this is not 4-dimensional (and is just mathematics) is to me illogical. That time is a process acting in a 4-dimensional space orthogonally to our 3 spatial dimensions is my contribution (!)

 

[externo]

That solution is the same as my statement(s). Time is always orthogonal to space (by definition in a 4 dimensional space). An assertion that this is not 4-dimensional (and is just mathematics) is to me illogical. That time is a process acting in a 4-dimensional space orthogonally to our 3 spatial dimensions is my contribution (!)

Space has four dimensions, but three of them are vectorial and constitute space in the strict sense. The fourth dimension is scalar (it has no physical depth, but rather represents density), and it is in this dimension that time is acting. The three vector dimensions are commonly referred to as "space," the scalar dimension as "time," and the set of all four dimensions as "spacetime."

 

[ZZTOP]

SPACETIME is entirely relative, Gib. So, therefore, all past-future tense is relative.

Spacetime is dead

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL77oOnrPzY&t=1525s&pp=ygURc3BhY2V0aW1lIGlzIGRlYWQ%3D

 

[CryptoCraig]

Sort of. I was hinting at Astronomers preferring an easy simplicity of flat Euclidian space and trying not to be divisive and rude. Whatever, it seems to me that even in an open universe scenario giving a trumpet shape there is curvature and the only infinity is that where expansion continues forever. The idea that 3D space is infinite does not sit well with me except infinitely circular but bounded.
This looks unclear, sorry. maybe a second attempt if you wish.

Maybe space isn't infinite. Is it possible that space is limited by mass? Or that the area between galaxies is actually NOT what we interpret as space?

Black holes at the center of galaxies are emitting X-rays. Could this be evidence of matter going back toward the center of the largest explosion ever? Thinking of why mushroom clouds form during large explosions on Earth. Matter expands very rapidly, then collapses back toward the location of the explosion.

As black-holes "eat" more and more matter within galaxies, can this make them go faster? Or like large explosions, was there an aftershock which created our universe's accelerating expansion?

 

[Atlan0001]

Maybe space isn't infinite. Is it possible that space is limited by mass? Or that the area between galaxies is actually NOT what we interpret as space?

Black holes at the center of galaxies are emitting X-rays. Could this be evidence of matter going back toward the center of the largest explosion ever? Thinking of why mushroom clouds form during large explosions on Earth. Matter expands very rapidly, then collapses back toward the location of the explosion.

As black-holes "eat" more and more matter within galaxies, can this make them go faster? Or like large explosions, was there an aftershock which created our universe's accelerating expansion?

Implosion?! rather than explosion???? From within a universally continuing implosion to infinity, could we tell the difference from a universally continuing explosion to infinity?! What about a balance of both equal but opposite natures, each one always the cause and effect of the other down through the subatomic levels . . . up through the universe levels? A net zero; well, infinite zero actually, universally speaking?!

 

[ZZTOP]

Maybe space isn't infinite. Is it possible that space is limited by mass? Or that the area between galaxies is actually NOT what we interpret as space?

Black holes at the center of galaxies are emitting X-rays. Could this be evidence of matter going back toward the center of the largest explosion ever? Thinking of why mushroom clouds form during large explosions on Earth. Matter expands very rapidly, then collapses back toward the location of the explosion.

As black-holes "eat" more and more matter within galaxies, can this make them go faster? Or like large explosions, was there an aftershock which created our universe's accelerating expansion?

This Princeton professor claims that spacetime is dead as even a theory because it is so flawed

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joeDff7EnAU&pp=ygURc3BhY2V0aW1lIGlzIGRlYWQ%3D

 

[Atlan0001]

Light's coordinate point past-future histories SPACETIME ((t=+1) (t=-1)), also known as the "observable universe" (past histories) and the "to be observed universe" (future past histories enroute) is never dead as the branch holography off-shooting from the base trunk of the tree (universally entangled, entangling, concurrent (t=0) REALTIME NOW (t=0) eternal instant.

SPACE (hyperspace) (subspace) (warp space) (wormhole tunnel space (aka "jump space")) (soliton bubble space) (cyberspace) (...) is the invisible un-observable "complexity" of a "Chaos Frontier" (or my preferred "Frontier of Chaos") : Vector self-similar fractal zooms (gravitational) structure of the (strong interaction forced "discrete quanta") universes.

 

[Gibsense]

And, it is not true to imply that a 2D flatlander does not appreciate a 3rd spatial dimension:
1) I assume they have movement (time)
2) I assume they can count (mathematics)

 

[Gibsense]

What do you mean by "time"? Universal time? No such thing.

So the age of the universe so often referred to is nonsense?

 

[Catastrophe]

And, it is not true to imply that a 2D flatlander does not appreciate a 3rd spatial dimension:
1) I assume they have movement (time)
2) I assume they can count (mathematics)

Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions is a satirical novella by the English schoolmaster Edwin Abbott Abbott, first published in 1884 by Seeley & Co. of London. Written pseudonymously by "A Square",[1] the book used the fictional two-dimensional world of Flatland to comment on the hierarchy of Victorian culture, but the novella's more enduring contribution is its examination of dimensions.

I have both "Flatland" and "Sphereland". In his "Limitations" introduction to the former, Isaac Asimov wrote:

Lineland (one dimension) and Flatland (two dimensions) are satisfied with their universes. They are not only incapable of understanding the limitations of their view but are enraged by any attempt to enforce them to transcend these limitations.

What reasons do you have to argue with Asimov's appraisal?


Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

So the age of the universe so often referred to is nonsense?

There is a "manmade" so-called universal time in the sense that:

universal time. The mean time for the meridian at Greenwich, England (0° longitude), which runs through the former site of the Royal Observatory. It is based on the sidereal period of Earth's rotation and is used as a basis for calculating standard clock time throughout most of the world.

Universal time, in the sense you appear to suggest a time measured from the assumed beginning of the Universe, which I understood from "So the age of the universe so often referred to is nonsense?".

From this beginning, there were no living creatures for billions of years to experience "time", and none to have a word for it, for more billions of years. So when did this universal time begin?

The existence of other civilisations in our "universe", or, even, in other "universes" is not proven.
If such exist which is "universal"? This is just another failure of semantics, in my opinion.

What references can you provide for such a "universal time"?

Nevertheless, I am open to reasoned discussion, if you can prove the contrary.


Cat

 

[Gibsense]

What references can you provide for such a "universal time"?

Nevertheless, I am open to reasoned discussion, if you can prove the contrary.

Maybe I am unique in thinking that I understood the person's meaning when they stated 'universal time'. They meant a 'time' that applied to the universe (and not a requirement of living biology). Hence 'the Age of the Universe'.
The Age of the Universe is a time. It applies 'universally'

To put the issue in context - If something had never moved through space (never had any acceleration) then its time would match that of 'Cosmic time/whatever BUT if something had a 'speed' through space then any such clock it had would read a different time - this applies to almost every object etc. I am sure you know this Cat and maybe prove to your satisfaction that such an interpretation of the person's intent can be reconciled with reality.
Note that technically -
Universal Time (UT) is a time standard that is based on the average rotation of the Earth and used generally for most things (by people).
and-
Cosmic Time
Cosmic time, also known as cosmological time, is a concept used in cosmology to measure the age of the universe. It's a way to track the passage of time on a cosmic scale, independent of any specific location or observer. Cosmic time is often used in the context of the Big Bang theory, where it represents the time elapsed since the universe began expanding.

The issue then is what exactly was intended.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_time#:~:text=as the age of the,age as 13.8 billion years.&text=Cosmic time, or cosmological time,relativity widely used in cosmology.

 

[Gibsense]

What reasons do you have to argue with Asimov's appraisal?

Asimov's writings entertained me for many years. Super 'hard' science fiction. Perhaps a little dated nowadays as written SF but TV and Films still exploit similar stuff. His (I think I have this correct) laws concerning robotics (AI) have been to the fore of late but they too are insufficient as it turns out.
But back to the point.
Your average Flatlander would not be able to penetrate the concept of a third dimension but an educated one would by mathematics.
Your average Linelander would not be able to penetrate the concept of a second dimension but an educated one would by mathematics.
The crunch comes when a Linelander tackles 3 dimensions - that takes imagination, lol.

 

[Catastrophe]

Asimov's writings entertained me for many years. Super 'hard' science fiction. Perhaps a little dated nowadays as written SF but TV and Films still exploit similar stuff. His (I think I have this correct) laws concerning robotics (AI) have been to the fore of late but they too are insufficient as it turns out.
But back to the point.
Your average Flatlander would not be able to penetrate the concept of a third dimension but an educated one would by mathematics.
Your average Linelander would not be able to penetrate the concept of a second dimension but an educated one would by mathematics.
The crunch comes when a Linelander tackles 3 dimensions - that takes imagination, lol.

Maybe I am unique in thinking that I understood the person's meaning when they stated 'universal time'. They meant a 'time' that applied to the universe (and not a requirement of living biology). Hence 'the Age of the Universe'.
The Age of the Universe is a time. It applies 'universally'

I really do not understand what you mean.

By what mathematics does an educated flatlander penetrate the concept of a third dimension?
Not to take into account the fact that flatlanders are literary inventions dating from 1884?
"the fictional two-dimensional world of Flatland".

Furthermore, "Maybe I am unique in thinking that I understood the person's meaning when they stated 'universal time' ". The facts seem to be quite the opposite - See Wiki 'universal time'.

As international commerce increased, the need for an international standard of time measurement emerged. Several authors proposed a "universal" or "cosmic" time (see Time zone § Worldwide time zones). The development of Universal Time began at the International Meridian Conference. At the end of this conference, on 22 October 1884,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Time#cite_note-6 the recommended base reference for world time, the "universal day", was announced to be the local mean solar time at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, counted from 0 hours at Greenwich mean midnight.[5] This agreed with the civil Greenwich Mean Time used on the island of Great Britain since 1847.

I am doing my best to understand what you mean

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

To put the issue in context - If something had never moved through space (never had any acceleration) then its time would match that of 'Cosmic time/whatever BUT if something had a 'speed' through space then any such clock it had would read a different time - this applies to almost every object etc. I am sure you know this Cat and maybe prove to your satisfaction that such an interpretation of the person's intent can be reconciled with reality.
Note that technically -
Universal Time (UT) is a time standard that is based on the average rotation of the Earth and used generally for most things (by people).
and-
Cosmic Time
Cosmic time, also known as cosmological time, is a concept used in cosmology to measure the age of the universe. It's a way to track the passage of time on a cosmic scale, independent of any specific location or observer. Cosmic time is often used in the context of the Big Bang theory, where it represents the time elapsed since the universe began expanding.

The issue then is what exactly was intended.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_time#:~:text=as the age of the,age as 13.8 billion years.&text=Cosmic time, or cosmological time,relativity widely used in cosmology.

I added this soon after posting; maybe you missed it. I know what UT is (quoted above) I though thought the statement made by the previous poster universal time (small 'u') was meant to be Cosmic/Cosmological time. I then tried to point out that Cosmological time does not suffer the time variations resulting from relative speeds. Maybe I was wrong to do so!

 

[Gibsense]

By what mathematics does an educated flatlander penetrate the concept of a third dimension?

In the same way that we Spacelanders (Flatlanders but an extra dimension ie.
Flatlanders: Space 3D :: Spacelanders : 4D space ). We can illustrate Tesseracts. They could illustrate Cubes

 

[Gibsense]

Universal time, in the sense you appear to suggest a time measured from the assumed beginning of the Universe, which I understood from "So the age of the universe so often referred to is nonsense?".

From this beginning, there were no living creatures for billions of years to experience "time", and none to have a word for it, for more billions of years. So when did this universal time begin?

Maybe this confusion is my fault. I assumed the poster (what was his name?) when he used the term 'universal time' actually meant Cosmic Time and not the technical meaning that you rightly point out is based on Greenwich UK.
Cosmic time of course is not an arbitrary invention of imagination but exists as a fact independent of human labels.

 

[Catastrophe]

And, it is not true to imply that a 2D flatlander does not appreciate a 3rd spatial dimension:
1) I assume they have movement (time)
2) I assume they can count (mathematics)

You state that something is not true, and then cite two assumptions.

These assumptions relate to fictional flatlanders which are literary inventions dating from 1884.
"the fictional two-dimensional world of Flatland".

You state that "it is not true to imply that a 2D flatlander does not appreciate a 3rd spatial dimension".

If flatlanders are fictional beings, how can you base arguments on your assumptions about them?

Do you really believe that your assumptions about these fictional beings (dating from 1884) have any meaningful reality in 2024?

You then state "Cosmic time of course is not an arbitrary invention of imagination but exists as a fact independent of human labels."

I disagree. Cosmic time is a human assumption, described using human labels.

The cosmic time describes galaxies' evolution, the universe's age and other cosmic phenomena. This concept is crucial in astrophysics, cosmology, and astronomy. Cosmic time is based on the universe's expansion rate and measured in billions of years.

Cosmic time is based by humans on the . . . . . .

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

Except for the constant reference to a magical beginning to, a magical creation of, the universe, I enjoyed this article from Space.com here no end . . . it comes so close to keeping the currency I look to keep:

What is the Planck time?

The almost impossibly brief Planck time has been known since the 19th century. Originally dismissed as a mere curiosity, it may hold the key to understanding the universe.

www.space.com