Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason

[Gibsense]

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

No it is a human discovery of a fact

 

[Gibsense]

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

Yes. Clearly a reality described in fiction is still a reality independent of that fiction.

 

[Catastrophe]

Yes. Clearly a reality described in fiction is still a reality independent of that fiction.

OK. I suggest we go our own ways. You have every right to your opinion.

Cat

Addendum:

I have tried to summarise my present position whilst cooking lunch. Here it is.

I recognise 3 variations of time.

1. Subjective time, which we recognise as we go through our lives.
Time may 'pass quickly or slowly' for us, individually, depending on circumstances.

2. Clock Time, which we agree and monitor, and which we can share to plan and execute our daily lives. Short periods are defined e.g., seconds. Longer periods, such as days and years vary in their duration, but only by small amounts over long periods. It is recognised worldwide, and is called Universal Time. Time zones are agreed, based on longitude.

3. What may be called Cosmic Time. This is found useful by relevant scientists when discussing the chronology of the observable universe. (History is not the right word, except, perhaps, for the last few decades.) Since it deals with periods before the Earth was formed, and before mankind could make measurements, it relies on indirect means of estimation, such as carbon dating, the Hubble "constant" and the "density of the universe", i.e., on assumptions.
I recognise that its units (days and years) varied substantially over billions of years. Indeed, we still app[y "years" to periods before the planet even existed.

I shall probably continue to give some thought to the subject, but I am happy with the above, at least for the time being.

 

[Gibsense]

OK. I suggest we go our own ways. You have every right to your opinion.

The whole discussion is about Cosmic time. The universal time (UT) bit is as you describe and I believe used in error by the poster - I may be right or wrong in that but it is irrelevant to the main point which I shall repeat -
This is not Quantum Mechanics. Cosmic Time does not need an observer. It is the Age of the Universe whether or not we measure it correctly or even measure it at all.
Comments about carbon dating and 'assumptions' are comments about the accuracy of our assessment and not about the meaning. It doesn't matter how much you use to wrap it up in words Cosmic Time is the Age of the universe - whether or not we guess it correctly is of no consequence to its meaning.

 

[Harry Costas]

Space cannot expand
Matter in the form of condensate can generate dipolar moments that eject matter in the form of expansion as we see in images.

Time cannot be compressed or expanded.
Time is not a physical item.

 

[550W]

我们有没有可能被银河系或未知的力量抛出？

 

[Gibsense]

我们有没有可能被银河系或未知的力量抛出？

Good question

 

[Catastrophe]

Cosmic Time is the Age of the universe - whether or not we guess it correctly is of no consequence to its meaning.

I think you mean "Cosmic Time" is a measure of the age of the Universe.
An "age" is the difference between two times, i.e., a time interval, not a time.
I agree that "Cosmic Time" is a measure of the age of the Universe.

I also agree that it is a guess, albeit our "best guess" based on assumptions.
Those time intervals, used in these guesses, are based on human definitions based on our language. The map is not the territory. The word is not the reality. (Korzybski).

For instance:

The reason we call it the Hubble constant is because the Universe expands at the same rate at every location in the Universe: the Hubble constant is constant throughout space. But the expansion rate, and therefore the value of the Hubble constant, changes with time.29 Jun 2018 (Wiki)

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

think you mean "Cosmic Time" is a measure of the age of the Universe.
An "age" is the difference between two times, i.e., a time interval, not a time.
I agree that "Cosmic Time" is a measure of the age of the Universe.

No I did not mean that. Cosmic Time (or Proper Time) is the age of the universe that we attempt to measure. End. Lol, no amount of wriggling will achieve any variance from this correct answer I offer you.

You quoted from Wikipedia: "The reason we call it the Hubble constant is because the Universe expands at the same rate at every location in the Universe: the Hubble constant is constant throughout space. But the expansion rate, and therefore the value of the Hubble constant, changes with time." 29 Jun 2018 (Wiki)

Yes, of course. Indeed I have shown why that is the case - or at least offered an explanation - which is that the radius of our spherical universe increases in step with time; the circumference (our 3d space) expands accordingly. I can send you (or anyone interested) an Excel worksheet with the work done to plug in any guess at Cosmic Time to see how it changes the Hubble Constant. If I were to nitpick I might say that the radius (the Cosmic Time) may have small variations resulting from slight changes in mass depending on direction.

You can then note the returned Ho accurately matches the measurement achieved by Novea 1 stars (for example) and by assuming that the CMB only measures from the time light was let loose the variance of about 500,000 years (from the spreadsheet) is a bit larger than current estimates. I worked the idea out decades ago starting with the Balloon analogy as if it were fact.

 

[Gibsense]

You can then note the returned Ho accurately matches the measurement achieved by Novea 1 stars (for example) and by assuming that the CMB only measures from the time light was let loose the variance of about 500,000 years (from the spreadsheet) is a bit larger than current estimates. I worked the idea out decades ago starting with the Balloon analogy as if it were fact.

About 24 years ago actually. I attempted to post on astronomy sites but was mocked in a nasty manner so I published a website "Timewave.com (?)". The name was stolen and in those days the alternatives (from .com) were not so many and those available were registered moments after I registered mine. They were bought and sold in those days - probably still are so if it looked like a decent name the sharks grabbed it.

I even wrote to an American University Professor, often online, to point out that his estimates of the size of the universe coincided with mine and why. He never responded. Some checked out my logic and even acknowledged the results but in a nasty way refused to accept my explanation. However, one Astronomer who frequented the AOL chat room was quite encouraging of my ideas; of time in a black hole, but got a bit annoyed that I did not develop them further - but I learned a lot from him. I have just remembered his chat name: 'FER'. Another AOL guy who seemed well knowledgeable, "Kmart13", said my ideas regarding Special Relativity were just special circumstances even though accurate.

Yes AOL was quite forgiving but everyone there drifted off. One reason I think was that the chatroom was inundated with crackpot ideas. Lol, maybe me too.. Anyway, after many years of not bothering I was happy to find this friendly and tolerant site 'Space.com'. I have expressed myself in full at last. Retire happy (ish).

 

[Harry Costas]

Its all about time.
How we communicate.
We communicate by EMR, and if you are near a black hole, the EMR slows down or speeds toward you or moves away from you,
It all depends on your position.
Time itself cannot change.
Communication relative to your position may alter.

 

[Classical Motion]

I disagree, we do not communicate with EMR. We use sound. And speech. Vibration patterns thru media. When we see visual images that we can’t hear, we go closer so we can hear, or look for a volume control.

A rock concert can be held in the dark. Shakespeare too.

 

[Gibsense]

We communicate by EMR, and if you are near a black hole, the EMR slows down or speeds toward you or moves away from you,

Light from an object entering a black hole (assuming it's not spinning for simplicity) appears to become redder to the point of leaving our sensory ability. It appears to slow down (and stop on entering the event horizon) when observed from a distance away (outward), but if you were 'there', it would seem to be normal.

Time runs at right angles (90 degrees to space. As you approach the black hole space curves and time rotates with the curvature - Gravitational Dilation. However, the light still travels through its space at 'c'

 

[ianwhi16]

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 expansion of space is not limited to redshift observations. It was those time dilation measurements that told us that not only was the universe expanding, but was doing so at an accelerating rate. And those SNe 1a measurements were backed up by observations of the baryon acoustic oscillations, and also from the observations of the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect on the CMB photons. So, we know the universe is expanding even without redshift measurements. So, any alternative 'model' needs to deal with those measurements as well. I am not seeing any in the peer-reviewed literature.

 

[Gibsense]

The expansion of space is not limited to redshift observations. It was those time dilation measurements that told us that not only was the universe expanding, but was doing so at an accelerating rate. And those SNe 1a measurements were backed up by observations of the baryon acoustic oscillations, and also from the observations of the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect on the CMB photons. So, we know the universe is expanding even without redshift measurements. So, any alternative 'model' needs to deal with those measurements as well. I am not seeing any in the peer-reviewed literature.

Yes, I agree that BAO data provides a 'standard unit' by which distances can be measured but my point is that the shape of the universe is about geometry - when considering a 3 Sphere. A somewhat obvious comment until you consider the following-

Time is orthogonal to space - fact. Measurements to consider whether the universe is flat assume that time is parallel. That is to say, that time proceeds in the same direction everywhere in the universe. This means that all data measured/manipulated/ assumes that the universe is flat. If time is assumed flat then space must be assumed flat.

In a 3sphere (hypersphere) space is curved. If we take measurements assuming it to be flat then we will come to an erroneous decision that the universe's expansion is speeding up. This can be illustrated by a measurement from an observer's position in a hypersphere and projecting equidistant events on the hypersphere onto the tangent (the tangent is the equivalent of assuming time as parallel). It then appears that equal amounts of time since t=0 (for the hypersphere) produce increasingly large distances as projected to the tangent. Giving the impression that expansion is speeding up.

Dark Energy does not therefore exist. There is a recent supportive study suggesting that there is 5% excessive mass over the critical position concluding that the universe is closed.

Accurate measurement of distance to show expansion BAO confirms expansion but this idea that expansion is increasing faster ignores the error of assuming parallel time at a distance if the universe is curved and our perception as Flatlanders (or Spherelanders as some would have it)
My position is illustrated diagrammatically in some previous posts. If you wish I can illustrate with more clarity than before. much easier than attempting to argue with word descriptions.

PS The dilation I referred to is SR at a universal scale (again I would need to draw it probably).

 

[Gibsense]

I am not seeing any in the peer-reviewed literature.

Not yet. I am a nobody. However, maybe you can have a crack at it. Look I am just offering some thoughts as a person used to being considered 'out of the box' - and frequently right lol (must try the stock exchange). Another perspective to the same problem:

We need to find a complete picture of time, distance, and the speed of light to provide a coherent model of the Universe's expansion. Quite apart from my comments previously -

The 'age of the universe' - about 13.77 billion years can be used in light years to model the radius of a sphere. The circumference would be 2 Pi R. If we add some time to the radius (speed of light as the conversion factor) we can see how much the circumference expands in that time.
When converted to the units used for the Hubble Constant, the expansion rate gives us a close approximation of H_0 as made using stars, BAO and other methods.
You might surmise that H_0 is inversely proportional to the universe's age - a younger universe expanding faster than an older one slowing down as per a closed universe where a slight excess of 5% mass does the trick but results in a massive universe.

I have not mentioned time dilation from SR universe size - the fact that time and space dilation can be plotted from a quadrant (of a circle) using the radius as time and distance radius at 90 degrees. If you use the age of the universe as the time radius and the intersection with the circumference as an observer reference place/point then the distance intersection is where the BB t=0 seems to be as a distance. It is illusory; just time dilation to t=0 as per that caused by space curvature to the event horizon of a black hole!

Maybe I should have issued some sort of warning to say that all these ideas are not peer-reviewed they are just the rather out-of-the-box ramblings of a self-taught nobody. Maybe

 

[Catastrophe]

Gibsense,

Do not do yourself an injustice.

I may not always agree with all you post, but I always read your posts with respect.

If we all came here to get people to agree with us, it would be pretty pointless.
Very often the "truth" may be closer to "a bit of each" ideas.

Cat