Yes. Clearly a reality described in fiction is still a reality independent of that fiction.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
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:
Cat
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.
Last edited:
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).
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.
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.
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.
A rock concert can be held in the dark. Shakespeare too.
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'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).
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
Last edited:
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
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
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
Have we seen anything like this so far? such as an asteroid or a planet or the sun; a massive object; Or Black hole ejected from galaxy by unknown force?
Unknown or known force
search.app
Largest Black Hole Jets Ever Seen Create a Galactic Structure That Will Blow Your Mind
How does this exist?
search.app
I was just reviewing this thread and was a bit surprised that it mostly stayed with the original theme. Then I realised that your original objective was to discuss 'What is there outside of the universe". After reading Sphereland (which covers the same ideas we have discussed) it forces a slightly different perspective. In itself this results in nothing much except a rethink.
We can have another look if we ignore the usual 'outside is nothing /zilch and, not even as much as zero'. Just pulling a lot of stuff together - the idea that time is a process occurring in 4 spatial dimensions rather than time as a 4th dimension it is possible to consider a closed universe within those 4 spatial dimensions.
The picture I am painting (as before many times) is 3D space as the surface of a sphere (a closed universe). My point to address yours is that the space within which the sphere (a hypersphere) exists is the same as the space external to the sphere. The internal space within the sphere (that constitutes the ball) is of the same stuff as that outside the sphere. That is 4D Space. Easily seen by your 3D+ person.
As the inside of the sphere cannot be denied as constituting space (4D space at that) it seems perfectly reasonable that external to the sphere is the same stuff. The problem is that this is not finite unless it too is closed. Bubbles within Bubbles. OK I give in! Maybe we need a 4 dimensional Mobius strip. But then what is outside the Mobius strip? Perhaps we should assume that 3D+ guy has the answer.
PS Another point I did not answer was how a 2D mathematician could calculate 3D issues. You challenged the idea that a 2d person could perceive an orthogonal direction by saying that volumes were out of their conception.
A pertinent point but a plain would be within their imaginations. The idea that a plain intersects its own plain at 90 degrees is feasible. It would start as a dot then a line increasing in length as it intersects and then declining until it disappears. They would lack the full description of an intersection of a sphere but would be able to ascertain basic principles.
We were both correct
A pertinent point but a plain would be within their imaginations. The idea that a plain intersects its own plain at 90 degrees is feasible. It would start as a dot then a line increasing in length as it intersects and then declining until it disappears. They would lack the full description of an intersection of a sphere but would be able to ascertain basic principles.
We were both correct
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Gibsense,
I think you have missed (or silently disagreed with?) one of my main points, which is that mankind is ("almost infinitely" - yes, yes, I know - that is why it is in quotes) extremely unlikely to be the only (even) slightly intelligent species in the entire (even "known") U/universe of billons of galaxies containing trillions of planets.
Are you assuming that mankind's view of the (any) universe, limited by mankind's restricted senses is the only possible option? Some might consider that mankind itself (if it lasts much longer) might develop further. Just consider the range of senses already apparent on just one single planet.
I accept that "my" analogy (the analogy that I initiated here in this limited context) is only an analogy - but it is a reasoned analogy, and not imaginary guesswork. Coupled with the above paragraph, I believe that it is not unreasonable to at least consider the possibility of higher dimensions being available to other beings. Much greater assumptions are accepted by millions, including those in total opposition to each other. Blind animals (if they could communicate) would deny the existence of sight as we know it.
So I believe that there may be higher dimensions that, at present, may be inaccessible to us.
"My analogy" suggests that, if this is the case, then there could be even billions of (what appear to be) "universes" to "flatlanders" = those able to access only fewer dimensions. To the "higher-D" being, these hypothetical flatlanders would all be external to each other's "universes".
"Universe" is a relative term, depending on the perceptions of those who see themselves in such limited circumstances.
If you require me to reiterate my suggestions, I am willing to explain.
Cat
I think you have missed (or silently disagreed with?) one of my main points, which is that mankind is ("almost infinitely" - yes, yes, I know - that is why it is in quotes) extremely unlikely to be the only (even) slightly intelligent species in the entire (even "known") U/universe of billons of galaxies containing trillions of planets.
Are you assuming that mankind's view of the (any) universe, limited by mankind's restricted senses is the only possible option? Some might consider that mankind itself (if it lasts much longer) might develop further. Just consider the range of senses already apparent on just one single planet.
I accept that "my" analogy (the analogy that I initiated here in this limited context) is only an analogy - but it is a reasoned analogy, and not imaginary guesswork. Coupled with the above paragraph, I believe that it is not unreasonable to at least consider the possibility of higher dimensions being available to other beings. Much greater assumptions are accepted by millions, including those in total opposition to each other. Blind animals (if they could communicate) would deny the existence of sight as we know it.
So I believe that there may be higher dimensions that, at present, may be inaccessible to us.
"My analogy" suggests that, if this is the case, then there could be even billions of (what appear to be) "universes" to "flatlanders" = those able to access only fewer dimensions. To the "higher-D" being, these hypothetical flatlanders would all be external to each other's "universes".
"Universe" is a relative term, depending on the perceptions of those who see themselves in such limited circumstances.
If you require me to reiterate my suggestions, I am willing to explain.
Cat
Last edited:
You highlighted a light-hearted throw-away comment about a Mobius Strip and then suggested that I may have missed the rather obvious offering that mankind is unlikely to be the only intelligent species in the universe (in addition to dolphins and the like I assume). I have no idea what you are getting at or what relevance that statement has to my post (or any of yours for that matter).
You seem to be in disagreement in some way or other but I have no idea what the problem is. There certainly is no need to explain as your post is clear enough on its own; I just don't see how it is relevant to my post.
As for your Balloon by all means possess it - we have moved on from there to a well-reasoned extra-dimensional closed universe that explains difficulties with the Flatness problem - much in the manner of Sphereland's Author. I mention this in response to your comment "Guesswork".
I will leave it there, I am sure you will agree further debate between us on this issue is unlikely to lead anywhere useful.
The infamous "traveler!" Always dealing in a totally obvious yet totally unrecognized (except as magic) "spooky action at a distance" physic! To the traveler, departure locals always disappearing into a dimensionless quantum physical point-portal-horizon in universe (u) behind . . . and new locals always -- as if by magic -- accelerating in expansion opening up in the universe from a self-similar dimensionless quantum physical point-portal-horizon ahead.
To observers, the travelers accelerate in contractions disappearing into said dimensionless quantum physical point-portal-horizons going away (again a "spooky action at a distance") . . . or in oncoming accelerating in expansion emerging into the observers' local-relative system open from those self-same dimensionless quantum physical point-portal-horizons (still again a geometrical "spooky action at a distance").
Disappearing into dimensionless points! Emergent from out of self-same dimensionless points! Also known, fractal flatly, as a universal "Flatland!" and/or Chaos's "Mandelbrot Set!" Dimensionally (including multi- and omni-dimensionally), an 'Infinite MULTIVERSE Universe (U)'!
To observers, the travelers accelerate in contractions disappearing into said dimensionless quantum physical point-portal-horizons going away (again a "spooky action at a distance") . . . or in oncoming accelerating in expansion emerging into the observers' local-relative system open from those self-same dimensionless quantum physical point-portal-horizons (still again a geometrical "spooky action at a distance").
Disappearing into dimensionless points! Emergent from out of self-same dimensionless points! Also known, fractal flatly, as a universal "Flatland!" and/or Chaos's "Mandelbrot Set!" Dimensionally (including multi- and omni-dimensionally), an 'Infinite MULTIVERSE Universe (U)'!
Last edited:
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason
- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 34
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 12
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram