Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason

[Catastrophe]

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

plain versus plane - Google Suche

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

Plain v Plane ; Thanks

 

[Harry Costas]

Interesting link

- YouTube

Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.

search.app

 

[Atlan0001]

It can't be rotated the way they rotate it in the YouTube video. The EM time curvature within SPACE disallows the picture to be a picture of such singular objects and orientations. The motions over SPACETIME's millions to billions of past-future histories would be a strange attractor of chaos making it a many sided particle that would be many different particles from each side of the many sides observed. Several different universes in one SPACE, impossible to map.

Thus, as the saying goes, that map is not the territory and can never be the territory. Small pieces of it, in SPACETIME, could be navigated at a time without losing one's way around the universes. But the whole would be changing in internal geometric curvatures too swiftly to hold on to an observable whole (just like, exactly like, a difference between superficially observable Relativity physics and hidden actual Quantum (quanta)physics).

 

[Gibsense]

The science:
By measuring about 2,400 Cepheid stars in 19 galaxies and comparing the observed brightness of both star types, they accurately measured their true brightness and calculated distances to roughly 300 Type Ia supernovae in far-flung galaxies.

The team compared those distances with the expansion of space as measured by the stretching of light from receding galaxies. They used these two values to calculate how fast the universe expands with time, or the Hubble constant.

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 logic: The spherical nature of the universe at extreme distances approaching t=0 introduces extreme curvature. The curvature acts to observe in much the same way as the spatial curvature on approaching a black hole. In both cases, space and time are rotated and time dilation occurs (at t=0 the rotation is 90 degrees).
NB I think the major misunderstandings are about:
1. That time has a specific dimension; this is not correct. There are 4 spatial dimensions. Time can 'act' in any direction of the 4 allowing the other 3 to be 3D space. However, do remember the radius is proper 'cosmic' time history and the radii of a sphere point in all possible directions of 4D space - I am referencing a hypersphere (a type of sphere)
2. That our position (on the sphere) is not unique. It is relative. If you moved a few billion light-years around the sphere t=0 would have shifted correspondingly (at 90 degrees to your time and space). It, t=0, results from curvature - not an approach to the BB. (similar to space curvature at a black hole)
3. The assertion that hyperspherical space curvature produces time dilation is only special relativity applied on a large scale (ignoring the effect of mass and relying on a homogenous nature of the universe).
4. Time is not a dimension but a process acting on the universe in any of 4 spatial dimensions but - within a hypersphere - in a radial direction primarily (cosmic/proper time) and rotated from the radial by speed. IMO
5. Time (locally) always acts at 90 degrees to the local space including where space is shaped by mass

I failed to point out that 'everyone' assumes that time measured anywhere (in the universe) runs parallel.

• If the universe is closed then space is curved (n sphere)
• Time runs orthogonal to space
• Therefore time is radial (not parallel)