Breaking the infinite pigeon hole theory

Page 3 - 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.
Rod, now you have started my BB hobbyhorse!

How The Expansion can be extrapolated back to a BB I see as totally unscientific, particularly when you take Inflation into account.

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,859
652
2,560
"An interesting math idea "

Yes, but anything more than an intellectual foible?

Cat :)
Well BB cosmology folks I suspect think they can explain the origin of the universe and everything in the universe too, including the multiverse :) I prefer more practical astronomy like viewing the Galilean moons moving around Jupiter and last night, using my 10-inch telescope viewing asteroid 4 Vesta in Leo, a bonus, the Leo trio of galaxies about 2.5 degrees in angular separation from Theta Leonis star or Chertan. 4 Vesta close to 70 arcminute or a bit more than one degree in separation from that star last night.
 
"Well BB cosmology folks I suspect think they can explain the origin of the universe and everything in the universe too, including the multiverse"

How sad. I thought science was about making sense of things you can measure, not about the heights of unmeasurable imagination - that was supposed to be philosophy.

I may have mentioned that, about 70 years ago, I had a 2and 1/2 inch refractor which I used for a while. (Now I refer looking at observatory photos in a warm room.) Sadly, a few years later, I traded it for a guitar - Bill Haley era.

Cat :)
 
Aug 14, 2020
168
37
110
I sitting at a table looking at all these replies concerning what we see and what we sense. I'm leaning on the table a bit and it is [quite solidly] supporting my leaning. Why is that my vision, my sense, cannot go past this finite of [quite solid] table, and its closest makeup to me, to the infinite(s) ever farther, and ever farther, away from that finite of well folded-in, well closed-in, well painted muraled, surface picture closeness? This relativity, or local, of table, local of united universe, to the quantum mechanics, and to the far reaches of the infinity of [ever dividing] universe(s), within?

The infinites of divided universe(s) [down and in] that have closed up here and now in relativity and locality to form the united finite composition of this table I sit at, have a correlative when we look [up and out] to a seemingly united finite universe from our seeming united finite universe of tables down and in. In other words, the reality we think is there, we see is there, we assume is there, isn't the reality back of the finite surface -- beyond the finite -- of any local (any relativity) of universe. The one difference is we can't travel the universes inland in the our tables, but we can sure, at least possibly and potentially, travel the universes out outland.
 
Last edited:
Nov 10, 2020
17
15
15
KC Strom, ref post #15. From what I know, the cosmological constant is *super sensitive* and wrong value here using General Relativity, space expands so fast nothing is here :) The Cosmological Constant Is Physics’ Most Embarrassing Problem, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-cosmological-constant-is-physics-most-embarrassing-problem/

forums had discussion on this too, https://forums.space.com/threads/cosmological-constant.37076/

QM and vacuum energy density just makes things worse for expanding space, some say 10^120 or more magnitude error between assuming cc value allowing space expansion (but not too fast) and what happens with vacuum energy using QM (blows the universe out, we are not here). My chief concern is post #1. How can this be shown to be science, thus verifiable like Galileo observations at Jupiter? So far it seems, the infinite number of universes all around me are not observable thus fail to meet science standards in my opinion.
Regarding the cosmological constant problem there is emerging evidence that the source of the problem is likely the initial assumptions used to reach it namely that there is a scale at which when zooming out the distribution of matter in the universe regains isotropy allowing one to greatly simplify the Einstein Field Equations. This assumption known as the cosmological principal is a starting assumption for modern cosmology as it enables the Einstein Field Equations to be simplified into a form where the equation can be easily enough solved.

The problem is that surveys have effectively ruled the existence of such a frame of reference out to Gigaparsec scales effectively disproving the cosmological principal. Surveys have found that while the cosmological principal works to excellent agreement with the Early universe the constraining approximation breaks down as the universe evolves in time towards the present.



The significance of this is profound the cosmological principal artificially constrains the Einstein field equations to maintain isotropy. The acceptance of the cosmological principal in cosmology today is based off of its success at explaining the Early Universe however it has been shown that this forcing is not only incompatible with observations it is an unnatural solution to Einstein's Field Equations much like Laminar flow is a limited constraint to Naiver Stokes Equations only valid where some dampening friction cancels out the eddies and nonlinear dynamics.

If this is indeed the case as it appears to very likely be then the observations would require some artificial dampening factor to prevent mass from grouping up in the models which is suspiciously like dark energy. So it seems probable that the underlying problem is that the Einstein field equations have been oversimplified too far. The terms that have bee dropped through symmetry are not in fact symmetric only approximately so in the Early universe so as gravity begins to take over amplifying those asymmetries the approximate scenario where one can declare a universal metric true everywhere at large scales breaks down.

In effect spacetime becomes turbulent the rate of expansion will no longer be uniform everywhere but vary locally and directionally as the formulation of the Einstein Field Equations as a rank 2 tensor equation naturally implies.

eBOSS's results seem to show this pretty well as by getting rid of the assumption of the cosmological principal they are able to naturally recover the Hubble rate of the CMB.

It also naturally solves a number of other problematic observations such as the "Axis of Evil" and the CMB multipole moments the local structure of the universe showing a net dipole moment structure, larger than expected structures in the Universe earlier than would be allowed with the cosmological principal really I can go on with examples but it I would be willing to bet there is a 99.99999...% chance that dark energy and these "issues" are artifacts of trying to force linearity on an inherently nonlinear system.

I see similar forcing issues in other systems of partial differential equations particularly the Naiver Stokes Equations but the Einstein Field Equations in their natural form are far more nonlinear than the equations of fluid dynamics and thus it should be expected that the metric should vary in a chaotic turbulent manner like any other system of partial differential equations with more than two degrees of freedom.

The only cosmological crisis is the unwillingness to admit that they need to solve the true Einstein field equations. It does mean that there is no longer a closed form solution and that one must now use a fully computational regime but there never was any reason to expect the universe to behave nicely.

As Richard Feynman said "if your theory doesn't agree with observations, its wrong."
There has been evidence against the cosmological principal as far back as the 1970's it has just fallen on deaf ears.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe and rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,859
652
2,560
In Dagrath's links, H0 is just less than 69 km/s/Mpc used. See my posts in discussion in post #48-50. Converting to cm/s/cm shows the universe can expand too quickly (as Cat says *unhinged*), LCDM cosmology will not work, dark matter will not form structure in the model(s). That is part of the cosmology problem. Einstein introduced the cosmological constant to create a static universe, others used it to show expansion and explain redshift light. Still others today seem to want to discard or ignore and the history of expansion rate changes (cm/s/cm) like I spoke of, remains something of a mystery, at least to me :)
 
Feb 3, 2020
55
32
560
Well, for what it is worth, I find this discussion refreshing. Thank you all.

Is the problem oversimplified equations, or incorrect equations, or the cosmological constant, or observational issues, or flawed theory, or or or?

Of course I do not know and I doubt we will solve it during the lifespan of this thread. However, what is refreshing about this discussion is the seeming acknowledgement that something "just doesn't seem right".

A wise man once said “we can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them”.

It seems a paradigm shift is overdue.
 
Aug 14, 2020
168
37
110
The constant or static Universe (U) is the infinite of Big Crunch / Big Bang (the infinite of closing / opening, all at once, all in one). Or one and the same constant of the two, always (forever) closing, always (forever) opening, a nakedly singular binary duo (a pulse that reduces to a naked singularity of being). The finite result of the static constant (the one engine) is to an infinity of finites (the infinity of local or relative universes), each and every local universe a mirror [potential] of the static constant of the base two infinites, singularly the base (the fundamental) (the primordial) engine. These two are -- this naked singularity is -- a beginning and end (static Universe) constant. There is no end to the infinite of Crunch and closing (it is an infinite and, thus, timeless part of the engine). There is no end to the infinite of Bang and opening (it is an infinite and, thus, timeless part of the engine). And there is no end to the local / relative infinity of finite crunches and bangs (the infinity itself of vertical and horizontal [finite] universes (u) is here the 'timeless').
 
Last edited:
KCX "s the problem oversimplified equations, or incorrect equations, or the cosmological constant, or observational issues, or flawed theory, or or or?"

or and / or meaning all, or at least more than one.

"A wise man once said 'we can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them'."

or more simply put: you cannot pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.

Cat :)
 
Huffington[ost.uk

QUOTE
he concept is simple: To pull yourself up by your bootstraps means to succeed or elevate yourself without any outside help.
But when you examine this expression and its current meaning, it doesn’t seem to make much sense.
To pull yourself up by your bootstraps is actually physically impossible. In fact, the original meaning of the phrase was more along the lines of “to try to do something completely absurd.”
QUOTE

OUCH! I have to modify that last post.
This may be a case of UK/US difference. UK usage imho is the last statement.

Cat :)
 
Jun 1, 2020
987
692
1,260
Thanks, David, for the following. [I've missed most all posts while traveling recently.]

Very interesting question. My first thought was that since the universe is expanding energy is spread out in a larger volume, it becomes more dilute, but the total amount of energy in the increased volume is still the same, so conserved.

That doesn't explain what happened to individual photons that you refer to. So, I found this article that says the photons are doing work in contributing to the expansion of the universe.

It's a bit long winded so here's the key paragraph;

"So yes, it's actually true: as the Universe expands, photons lose energy. But that doesn't mean energy isn't conserved; it means that the energy goes into the Universe's expansion itself, in the form of work. And if the Universe ever reverses the expansion and contracts again, that work will be done in reverse, and will go right back into the photons inside."

:)
It's informative but still unclear to me how work actually takes place from a zipping photon. If galaxies stretch very little from expansion due only to gravity, why would a EM powered photon. What is it about space that allows any work on it to be done? Gas molecules are easily seen to be doing work on, say, a piston. But what is it photos are pushing in the aether. I suspect they are correct, but I recently read how Maxwell took Faraday's work and imagined how EM fields propagated through space as if it were an actual fluid. Interesting stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Jun 1, 2020
987
692
1,260
Cat, the BB cosmology presently has 3D space expanding at 2.24 x 10^-18 cm/s/cm using H0 = 69 km/s/Mpc. This suggest that everything in 3D space could be expanding. Consider inflation epoch. 3D space expands > 3 x 10^30 cm/s/cm then slows down to our 2.24 x 10^-18 cm/s/cm. Planck time, Planck length, very tiny dimensions :) Somehow, the universe allowed structure to form and 3D space not to expand too fast, i.e. the cosmological constant problem.
The motions of objects in space are a result of all the forces acting on them. For instance, the anisotropy from, say, the Recombination period demonstrates that gravity was at work in producing the first regions where gas clouds would accumulate and help form the first stars. The hydrogen and helium would be overpowered by gravity vs. the expansion of space. Whatever extra space they had to trouble through in their motions due to gravity weren't enough to prevent their travel to one another.

In extragalactic space, the expansion dominates what takes place, so these clusters will separate from one another over time, though on the whole, they form filaments for some reason.

At least that's how I see it, but I'm in the non-scientist crowd, so I'm open for logical changes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Jun 1, 2020
987
692
1,260
The only cosmological crisis is the unwillingness to admit that they need to solve the true Einstein field equations. It does mean that there is no longer a closed form solution and that one must now use a fully computational regime but there never was any reason to expect the universe to behave nicely.
GR is limited in its scope. It doesn't address issues like the conservation, or not, of energy. It incorporates gravity into SR. Einstein worked thereafter for the bigger theory that never came to fruition... so far. :)

As Richard Feynman said "if your theory doesn't agree with observations, its wrong."
There has been evidence against the cosmological principal as far back as the 1970's it has just fallen on deaf ears.
Yes, but Yogi Berra said that you can see a lot just by looking. :)

The time delay in SN light profiles is strong evidence for the expansion, which supports redshift claims for the same expansion. Has that changed?
 
Nov 10, 2020
17
15
15
GR is limited in its scope. It doesn't address issues like the conservation, or not, of energy. It incorporates gravity into SR. Einstein worked thereafter for the bigger theory that never came to fruition... so far. :)

Yes, but Yogi Berra said that you can see a lot just by looking. :)

The time delay in SN light profiles is strong evidence for the expansion, which supports redshift claims for the same expansion. Has that changed?
The conservation of energy does not matter to this discussion indeed the work of Emmy Noether shows that conservation laws are a consequence of specific symmetries of nature, energy conservation in particular arises from time symmetries i.e. when you do an experiment doesn't matter for the results this is true for special relativity but in the case of general relativity time varies along with space changing the metric of the universe with time thus the symmetry breaks down and energy is no longer a conserved quantity.

The case with measurements like the SN profiles is several fold.
The first is we now know that type Ia supernovae are not all identical as had been previously assumed as the explosions depend on the type of White dwarf its interaction partner(s) and nonlinear effects within the stars interior as the star starts to fail in a non uniform manner. Perhaps the most striking example of this is IRAS 00500+6713 a combination object of a type Iax supernovae remnant and a massive Super Chandrasekhar remnant at the supernovae remnant's center that managed to reestablish an equilibrium between fusion rates and gravity. The star is extremely luminous with its spectrum indicating a very high proportion of runaway fusion reaction products with a spectrum devoid of hydrogen or helium with Neon as the most abundant element. This is a resolvable issue if you get a detailed enough spectrum as there are fine detail differences which can reveal what scenario occurred but it does mean that if you only catch a glimpse or afterglow that it will be hard to reliably use that observation.


But the more important issue has to do with the cosmological principle which was assumed to allow researchers to extrapolate distance measures from across the sky. These supernovae are rare and thus there isn't a statistically significant number of such events detected which is made worse that they aren't distributed evenly over the sky but in the directions where we have good observational survey telescopes trained to pick up on and report such events.

Studies which bin sectors of the sky before performing distance ladder estimates alarmingly do not get the same answer that the all sky survey obtained instead each sector gives a different answer some slower other faster with the some sampled region cutting through the area that produces the highest apparent constant. Compiling the full all sky average reproduces the reported supernovae results but depending on where you draw the lines you can get very different expansion rates which is frankly bizarre. The catch is that these bins are far to small in statistical significance for supernovae results since the supernovae results even over the whole sky were already severely under sampling the sky individual sectors of the sky are even less statistically significant.

That is where other independent distance ladder measurements come into play and they have experienced similar problems. eBOSS's survey results are particularly noteworthy as they showed that their Extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey data set is sensitive to the redshift sample used for estimation. If you use everything binning the surveys total results you recover the same sort of value as the Supernovae results but if you restrict the sample to higher redshifts it changes dramatically going back to approximately the last 6 billion years. Before that the rate of expansion was much less variable with results reproducing the same range of Hubble expansion rate that studies of the cosmic microwave background recover.
Additionally if you allow the nonuniform variability of expansion you likewise recover the Plank value for the "Hubble constant".

This is consistent with what the earlier paper I linked published in 2017 as well as with the many successes of the cosmological principal in studying the early universe.

This really is exactly what you would expect if an approximation used in your analysis breaks down. Right now the only thing we can say with any degree of confidence is that if dark energy is real it is bizarrely non uniform. There are other possible explanations for these observed variations the most terrifying being quintessence as it ultimately predicts the big rip but at the same time this also could mean that there is no dark energy at all just that the metric of spacetime is much more dynamic.

It could also potentially be something in-between we don't know yet only more data will enable that determination a lot more data as our sample size of observations isn't high enough without the ability to average large swaths of the sky.

Edited because homophones exist
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Aug 14, 2020
168
37
110
The Big Crunch / Big Bang Universe would of necessity be the Universe at supreme, I envision 'super-supreme', acceleration. I look at it as Einstein's traveler might, traveling so fast that there is now not enough space and time between mass. So fast that space-time itself virtually disappears regarding mass-energy. It is not a parallel universe, not a multiverse, it is [the] Universe, including the universe we exist in, already and always at that acceleration -- at those increased, and ever increasing, velocities of the traveler. If that traveler has survived to that point, where is it? The only place it can be, already well into the Big Bang [the big holing] that is the other face of the binary duo, the other entity of a single duality. It (the Big Crunch / Big Bang Universe) is, after all, a mass-energy / space-time duality. The bigger, greater, the Crunch (the closed), the bigger, greater, the Bang (the open). The Big Bang, again, being the big holing, itself, of Big Crunch's mass-energy crunch, itself. Just two faces of one and the same thing; one and the same Universe.

The other face of an atom is that it is space and time. The other face of a quark is that it is space and time. The other face of that whole universe, too, going down and in and away vertically-horizontally into an infinity of universes (the infinity of the infinitesimal) is that it is space and time. The holing (the Big Bang) that is the ultimate entity, the ultimate destination, of the Big Crunch. The ultimate entity of the big hole (the big holing) itself, the Big Bang itself, [is] the Big Crunch. It goes both ways at once. The engine, the pulse, the animation.

*Deleted* ("A bridge too far,")
 
Last edited:
The conservation of energy does not matter to this discussion indeed the work of Emmy Noether shows that conservation laws are a consequence of specific symmetries of nature, energy conservation in particular arises from time symmetries i.e. when you do an experiment doesn't matter for the results this is true for special relativity but in the case of general relativity time varies along with space changing the metric of the universe with time thus the symmetry breaks down and energy is no longer a conserved quantity.

The case with measurements like the SN profiles is several fold.
The first is we now know that type Ia supernovae are not all identical as had been previously assumed as the explosions depend on the type of White dwarf its interaction partner(s) and nonlinear effects within the stars interior as the star starts to fail in a non uniform manner. Perhaps the most striking example of this is IRAS 00500+6713 a combination object of a type Iax supernovae remnant and a massive Super Chandrasekhar remnant at the supernovae remnant's center that managed to reestablish an equilibrium between fusion rates and gravity. The star is extremely luminous with its spectrum indicating a very high proportion of runaway fusion reaction products with a spectrum devoid of hydrogen or helium with Neon as the most abundant element. This is a resolvable issue if you get a detailed enough spectrum as there are fine detail differences which can reveal what scenario occurred but it does mean that if you only catch a glimpse or afterglow that it will be hard to reliably use that observation.


But the more important issue has to do with the cosmological principal which was assumed to allow researchers to extrapolate distance measures from across the sky. These supernovae are rare and thus there isn't a statistically significant number of such events detected which is made worse that they aren't distributed evenly over the sky but in the directions where we have good observational survey telescopes trained to pick up on and report such events.

Studies which bin sectors of the sky before performing distance ladder estimates alarmingly do not get the same answer that the all sky survey obtained instead each sector gives a different answer some slower other faster with the some sampled region cutting through the area that produces the highest apparent constant. Compiling the full all sky average reproduces the reported supernovae results but depending on where you draw the lines you can get very different expansion rates which is frankly bizarre. The catch is that these bins are far to small in statistical significance for supernovae results since the supernovae results even over the whole sky were already severely under sampling the sky individual sectors of the sky are even less statistically significant.

That is where other independent distance ladder measurements come into play and they have experienced similar problems. eBOSS's survey results are particularly noteworthy as they showed that their Extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey data set is sensitive to the redshift sample used for estimation. If you use everything binning the surveys total results you recover the same sort of value as the Supernovae results but if you restrict the sample to higher redshifts it changes dramatically going back to approximately the last 6 billion years. Before that the rate of expansion was much less variable with results reproducing the same range of Hubble expansion rate that studies of the cosmic microwave background recover.
Additionally if you allow the nonuniform variability of expansion you likewise recover the Plank value for the "Hubble constant".

This is consistent with what the earlier paper I linked published in 2017 as well as with the many successes of the cosmological principal in studying the early universe.

This really is exactly what you would expect if an approximation used in your analysis breaks down. Right now the only thing we can say with any degree of confidence is that if dark energy is real it is bizarrely non uniform. There are other possible explanations for these observed variations the most terrifying being quintessence as it ultimately predicts the big rip but at the same time this also could mean that there is no dark energy at all just that the metric of spacetime is much more dynamic.

It could also potentially be something in-between we don't know yet only more data will enable that determination a lot more data as our sample size of observations isn't high enough without the ability to average large swaths of the sky.
A quiet word of advice. Check the meanings of principle and principal.

Cat :)
 
The conservation of energy does not matter to this discussion indeed the work of Emmy Noether shows that conservation laws are a consequence of specific symmetries of nature, energy conservation in particular arises from time symmetries i.e. when you do an experiment doesn't matter for the results this is true for special relativity but in the case of general relativity time varies along with space changing the metric of the universe with time thus the symmetry breaks down and energy is no longer a conserved quantity.

The case with measurements like the SN profiles is several fold.
The first is we now know that type Ia supernovae are not all identical as had been previously assumed as the explosions depend on the type of White dwarf its interaction partner(s) and nonlinear effects within the stars interior as the star starts to fail in a non uniform manner. Perhaps the most striking example of this is IRAS 00500+6713 a combination object of a type Iax supernovae remnant and a massive Super Chandrasekhar remnant at the supernovae remnant's center that managed to reestablish an equilibrium between fusion rates and gravity. The star is extremely luminous with its spectrum indicating a very high proportion of runaway fusion reaction products with a spectrum devoid of hydrogen or helium with Neon as the most abundant element. This is a resolvable issue if you get a detailed enough spectrum as there are fine detail differences which can reveal what scenario occurred but it does mean that if you only catch a glimpse or afterglow that it will be hard to reliably use that observation.


But the more important issue has to do with the cosmological principle which was assumed to allow researchers to extrapolate distance measures from across the sky. These supernovae are rare and thus there isn't a statistically significant number of such events detected which is made worse that they aren't distributed evenly over the sky but in the directions where we have good observational survey telescopes trained to pick up on and report such events.

Studies which bin sectors of the sky before performing distance ladder estimates alarmingly do not get the same answer that the all sky survey obtained instead each sector gives a different answer some slower other faster with the some sampled region cutting through the area that produces the highest apparent constant. Compiling the full all sky average reproduces the reported supernovae results but depending on where you draw the lines you can get very different expansion rates which is frankly bizarre. The catch is that these bins are far to small in statistical significance for supernovae results since the supernovae results even over the whole sky were already severely under sampling the sky individual sectors of the sky are even less statistically significant.

That is where other independent distance ladder measurements come into play and they have experienced similar problems. eBOSS's survey results are particularly noteworthy as they showed that their Extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey data set is sensitive to the redshift sample used for estimation. If you use everything binning the surveys total results you recover the same sort of value as the Supernovae results but if you restrict the sample to higher redshifts it changes dramatically going back to approximately the last 6 billion years. Before that the rate of expansion was much less variable with results reproducing the same range of Hubble expansion rate that studies of the cosmic microwave background recover.
Additionally if you allow the nonuniform variability of expansion you likewise recover the Plank value for the "Hubble constant".

This is consistent with what the earlier paper I linked published in 2017 as well as with the many successes of the cosmological principal in studying the early universe.

This really is exactly what you would expect if an approximation used in your analysis breaks down. Right now the only thing we can say with any degree of confidence is that if dark energy is real it is bizarrely non uniform. There are other possible explanations for these observed variations the most terrifying being quintessence as it ultimately predicts the big rip but at the same time this also could mean that there is no dark energy at all just that the metric of spacetime is much more dynamic.

It could also potentially be something in-between we don't know yet only more data will enable that determination a lot more data as our sample size of observations isn't high enough without the ability to average large swaths of the sky.

Edited because homophones exist
but in the case of general relativity time varies along with space changing the metric of the universe with time thus the symmetry breaks down and energy is no longer a conserved quantity.
What happens to that energy? Is there any evidence to support this? :)
 
The conservation of energy does not matter to this discussion indeed the work of Emmy Noether shows that conservation laws are a consequence of specific symmetries of nature, energy conservation in particular arises from time symmetries i.e. when you do an experiment doesn't matter for the results this is true for special relativity but in the case of general relativity time varies along with space changing the metric of the universe with time thus the symmetry breaks down and energy is no longer a conserved quantity.

The case with measurements like the SN profiles is several fold.
The first is we now know that type Ia supernovae are not all identical as had been previously assumed as the explosions depend on the type of White dwarf its interaction partner(s) and nonlinear effects within the stars interior as the star starts to fail in a non uniform manner. Perhaps the most striking example of this is IRAS 00500+6713 a combination object of a type Iax supernovae remnant and a massive Super Chandrasekhar remnant at the supernovae remnant's center that managed to reestablish an equilibrium between fusion rates and gravity. The star is extremely luminous with its spectrum indicating a very high proportion of runaway fusion reaction products with a spectrum devoid of hydrogen or helium with Neon as the most abundant element. This is a resolvable issue if you get a detailed enough spectrum as there are fine detail differences which can reveal what scenario occurred but it does mean that if you only catch a glimpse or afterglow that it will be hard to reliably use that observation.


But the more important issue has to do with the cosmological principle which was assumed to allow researchers to extrapolate distance measures from across the sky. These supernovae are rare and thus there isn't a statistically significant number of such events detected which is made worse that they aren't distributed evenly over the sky but in the directions where we have good observational survey telescopes trained to pick up on and report such events.

Studies which bin sectors of the sky before performing distance ladder estimates alarmingly do not get the same answer that the all sky survey obtained instead each sector gives a different answer some slower other faster with the some sampled region cutting through the area that produces the highest apparent constant. Compiling the full all sky average reproduces the reported supernovae results but depending on where you draw the lines you can get very different expansion rates which is frankly bizarre. The catch is that these bins are far to small in statistical significance for supernovae results since the supernovae results even over the whole sky were already severely under sampling the sky individual sectors of the sky are even less statistically significant.

That is where other independent distance ladder measurements come into play and they have experienced similar problems. eBOSS's survey results are particularly noteworthy as they showed that their Extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey data set is sensitive to the redshift sample used for estimation. If you use everything binning the surveys total results you recover the same sort of value as the Supernovae results but if you restrict the sample to higher redshifts it changes dramatically going back to approximately the last 6 billion years. Before that the rate of expansion was much less variable with results reproducing the same range of Hubble expansion rate that studies of the cosmic microwave background recover.
Additionally if you allow the nonuniform variability of expansion you likewise recover the Plank value for the "Hubble constant".

This is consistent with what the earlier paper I linked published in 2017 as well as with the many successes of the cosmological principal in studying the early universe.

This really is exactly what you would expect if an approximation used in your analysis breaks down. Right now the only thing we can say with any degree of confidence is that if dark energy is real it is bizarrely non uniform. There are other possible explanations for these observed variations the most terrifying being quintessence as it ultimately predicts the big rip but at the same time this also could mean that there is no dark energy at all just that the metric of spacetime is much more dynamic.

It could also potentially be something in-between we don't know yet only more data will enable that determination a lot more data as our sample size of observations isn't high enough without the ability to average large swaths of the sky.

Edited because homophones exist
the work of Emmy Noether shows that conservation laws are a consequence of specific symmetries of nature, energy conservation in particular arises from time symmetries i.e. when you do an experiment doesn't matter for the results this is true for special relativity but in the case of general relativity time varies along with space changing the metric of the universe with time thus the symmetry breaks down and energy is no longer a conserved quantity.
I don't believe time exists. Do you know if there's a way to express what Emmy said without referring to time? Is it sufficient just to say that the same experiments will always give the same results when repeated, so no need to refer to time? :)
 
"I don't believe time exists."

Are we getting bogged down in anthropocentric semantics?

The "I" suggests a human centred opinion, reinforced by the word "believe".
"Exists" implies capable of detection by human sensory apparatus.

I suggest most people would disagree with your statement (although they cannot share your sensory apparatus) as we all share the same delusion (if you will).

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
Aug 14, 2020
168
37
110
Tough to give any real proof if we are it the one and only universe and nothing else exists.
Or we are just 1 universe in a sea of infinite BB universes.
Or endless fluctuation is the universe and our BB is just 1 of an infinite number of them in it.
Dark flow/great attracter is pointing to something for sure and IMO is the answer or beginning of an answer :)

Time/location/interference tough to imagine an exact copy of anything in an endless bag of marbles that interact in a unique way with every marble in the bag in a different way.
Sorry I missed your long ago response. The boundary horizon of any locality must go away from that local. That boundary locality is no copy of the original locality, though it, too, has its infinity of exact copies. Boundary localities proceed toward vastness of difference from the base locality you set as base, all of them then having their own infinity of exact copies infinite distances away and between them -- blocked away by the potential infinity of boundary frontiers' differences.

Frontier difference must crest at some point in the vastness of difference like a mountain incline of difference that at some point will crest from incline up to incline down, proceeding in lessening differences toward some universe that will be an exact copy of your original base. (smiling) Is it an exact copy (which, with infinity you know it is) or have you gone around the world, so to speak, and returned to your base of origin (which you sense is a good possibility and no different at all from probability, there being no difference whatsoever between the exact copy and the original base of origin? You sense an infinity of exact copies of you did exactly what you did -- no difference at all. In Chaos Theory I suppose it would be called "self-similarity".... or the overlaying of all [into] one.

Yet in your life you are at every point of your life engaged in decision point branching (being at crossroads of life) whether voluntarily or involuntarily. Like the particle in quantum mechanics that will take every path possible to it -- at all times, in an infinity you too will have taken, and will take, every path possible to you (at all times!) some where, some time, in an infinity of wheres and whens and branchings. In some universe (u), you died at birth. In some other you lived to be as old as Methuselah, and maybe a lot older. In some, you never existed at all. In some you've traveled everywhere, well just about everywhere, even traveling universes. In some you never left home, maybe never left the cave. Multiverse; multi-dimensionality; potential infinity of dimensions, included. Each local and relative finite universe (u) of an infinity gains and loses, but the supreme of infinite Big Crunch / Big Bang -- Big Beginning -- Universe (U) gains nothing and loses nothing. It, being non-local and non-relative, then never gains nor loses you either, no matter the crossroads in the infinity of local, relative, finite, universes.
 
Last edited:
Sorry I missed your long ago response. The boundary horizon of any locality must go away from that local. That boundary locality is no copy of the original locality, though it, too, has its infinity of exact copies. Boundary localities proceed toward vastness of difference from the base locality you set as base, all of them then having their own infinity of exact copies infinite distances away and between them -- blocked away by the potential infinity of boundary frontiers' differences.

Frontier difference must crest at some point in the vastness of difference like a mountain incline of difference that at some point will crest from incline up to incline down, proceeding in lessening differences toward some universe that will be an exact copy of your original base. (smiling) Is it an exact copy (which, with infinity you know it is) or have you gone around the world, so to speak, and returned to your base of origin (which you sense is a good possibility and no different at all from probability, there being no difference whatsoever between the exact copy and the original base of origin? You sense an infinity of exact copies of you did exactly what you did -- no difference at all. In Chaos Theory I suppose it would be called "self-similarity".... or the overlaying of all [into] one.

Yet in your life you are at every point of your life engaged in decision point branching (being at crossroads of life) whether voluntarily or involuntarily. Like the particle in quantum mechanics that will take every path possible to it -- at all times, in an infinity you too will have taken, and will take, every path possible to you (at all times!) some where, some time, in an infinity of wheres and whens and branchings. In some universe (u), you died at birth. In some other you lived to be as old as Methuselah, and maybe a lot older. In some, you never existed at all. In some you've traveled everywhere, well just about everywhere, even traveling universes. In some you never left home, maybe never left the cave. Multiverse; multi-dimensionality; potential infinity of dimensions, included. Each local and relative finite universe (u) of an infinity gains and loses, but the supreme of infinite Big Crunch / Big Bang -- Big Beginning -- Universe (U) gains nothing and loses nothing. It, being non-local and non-relative, then never gains nor loses you either, no matter the crossroads in the infinity of local, relative, finite, universes.
No worry, happens to me once in a while i miss a post and it's difficult to find it again.

All speculation about infinity so it gets in to best guess territory.
I guess if we can have 1 BB universe the logic is why not 2.

A few signs of proof exist in out BB universe that others exist but going to take a while before we can dot the dots and say it's real or not.

Maybe just a rethink of reality is in order and giving up on the idea that our BB is all that exists.

Nice to be around when we might get an answer to the (final frontier) or a final frontier that only exists in our BB and not the endless universe behind the scenes.
 
Aug 14, 2020
168
37
110
No worry, happens to me once in a while i miss a post and it's difficult to find it again.

All speculation about infinity so it gets in to best guess territory.
I guess if we can have 1 BB universe the logic is why not 2.

A few signs of proof exist in out BB universe that others exist but going to take a while before we can dot the dots and say it's real or not.

Maybe just a rethink of reality is in order and giving up on the idea that our BB is all that exists.

Nice to be around when we might get an answer to the (final frontier) or a final frontier that only exists in our BB and not the endless universe behind the scenes.
The problem, and the beauty, is the distant collapsed horizon is the constant of horizon to all of the infinity of local universes, as I see it. Sort of 'super-positioned' to them all, because the BC / BB that the horizon fronts is super-positioned universally (to them all). It is nothing more nor less than an alternate and correlative dimension of the infinity of them all. As a traveler you could travel universe to universe, to universe, and all the [scenery], all of substance of each succeeding [relative] universe, would be observed by you the traveler to come to you out of that horizon that maintains its distance from you like lands coming out from the horizon of Earth to a ship sailing the seas of Earth. It would be observed by you to be brand new at / in the horizon and evolve, changing (including left / right, up / down, positioning), as it came toward you as you traveled forward. Meanwhile, your point of origin, all the way to galaxy and whole universe behind would [observably] disappear behinds into that same horizon maintaining its distance from you behind you. But it is more than a simple disappearance, it is a disappearance into relative, observable, time, a disappearance into youth and a disappearance into movement left / right, up / down, and, again observed as such, a reversing of history. Just as the universe to your fore would be observed by you to come up eons in time to currency with you, the universe to your rear would be observed to do the exact opposite. An analogy: The Mars we observe in our own solar system is minutes from being the actuality of Mars. The traveler to Mars crosses not only space to Mars, but time to Mars (observes himself / herself to travel up through a history as well as travel time to a Mars existing concurrently in space and time with Earth). The Earth left behind and now observed in the distance from Mars is minutes from being the actuality of Earth (there are now two Earths for the traveler, the relative time Earth he observes in the distance and the real time (dark) concurrently existing Earth he does not and cannot observe). Imagine Earth, and the Milky Way, apparently reversing course in their billions of years of traveling and disappearing into their youth and pre-existence, finally to merge into the horizon of the BC / BB behind you as the traveler. If you reversed course, and were a fantastic navigator, you might bring the Milky Way, and thus the Earth, [observably] back out of the horizon evolving toward the Milky Way and Earth of your present. Of course neither really left concurrency with you the traveler, they, the reality of them, just disappeared into darkness from your ability to observe them. The universe behind you in your travel, for you, effectively split in two, the relative space-time universe you would be observing, and the real space-time universe you can never observe. The difference will expand in an accelerating expansion behind you the traveler, and close up before you as relative (here a speeding up history in time) and real (the unobservable dark -- concurrent -- real space-time) merge to one and the same for you at every arriving 0-point of your travel. That bears repeating; the universe [closes] to you, relative and real, keeps on [closing] to you (from its split), before you as the traveler. But no matter what direction you look out as the traveler, though, the distant collapsed horizon has kept, and keeps, its exact distance from you (receding before and following behind, no different from the Planck Horizon distantly down, down, and in from every atom of your makeup (the two being one and the same constant of distantly collapsed horizon whether up and out or down and in)).

This universe relative / real closing up to merge to one before you (well, almost one), and opening in expanding split into the two of relative and real behind you, happens when you walk or drive down the street. It's just so close to you (so indistinguishable) it isn't big enough for you to notice... usually! It's big enough for a precisionist satellite in space above the Earth to have trouble with, to have to be compensated for, though. Not only around us [out here], but regarding quantum mechanics that inevitable split between relative space-time and real space-time, even at that tiny of a separation between, can drive scientists crazy (not only having to do with the difference between real and relative but because the relative itself, being what it is, can split itself many apparent and varying space-times over).
 
Last edited:
The problem, and the beauty, is the distant collapsed horizon is the constant of horizon to all of the infinity of local universes, as I see it. Sort of 'super-positioned' to them all, because the BC / BB that the horizon fronts is super-positioned universally (to them all). It is nothing more nor less than an alternate and correlative dimension of the infinity of them all. As a traveler you could travel universe to universe, to universe, and all the [scenery], all of substance of each succeeding [relative] universe, would be observed by you the traveler to come to you out of that horizon that maintains its distance from you like lands coming out from the horizon of Earth to a ship sailing the seas of Earth. It would be observed by you to be brand new at / in the horizon and evolve, changing (including left / right, up / down, positioning), as it came toward you as you traveled forward. Meanwhile, your point of origin, all the way to galaxy and whole universe behind would [observably] disappear behinds into that same horizon maintaining its distance from you behind you. But it is more than a simple disappearance, it is a disappearance into relative, observable, time, a disappearance into youth and a disappearance into movement left / right, up / down, and, again observed as such, a reversing of history. Just as the universe to your fore would be observed by you to come up eons in time to currency with you, the universe to your rear would be observed to do the exact opposite. An analogy: The Mars we observe in our own solar system is minutes from being the actuality of Mars. The traveler to Mars crosses not only space to Mars, but time to Mars (observes himself / herself to travel up through a history as well as travel time to a Mars existing concurrently in space and time with Earth). The Earth left behind and now observed in the distance from Mars is minutes from being the actuality of Earth (there are now two Earths for the traveler, the relative time Earth he observes in the distance and the real time (dark) concurrently existing Earth he does not and cannot observe). Imagine Earth, and the Milky Way, apparently reversing course in their billions of years of traveling and disappearing into their youth and pre-existence, finally to merge into the horizon of the BC / BB behind you as the traveler. If you reversed course, and were a fantastic navigator, you might bring the Milky Way, and thus the Earth, [observably] back out of the horizon evolving toward the Milky Way and Earth of your present. Of course neither really left concurrency with you the traveler, they, the reality of them, just disappeared into darkness from your ability to observe them. The universe behind you in your travel, for you, effectively split in two, the relative space-time universe you would be observing, and the real space-time universe you can never observe. The difference will expand in an accelerating expansion behind you the traveler, and close up before you as relative (here a speeding up history in time) and real (the unobservable dark -- concurrent -- real space-time) merge to one and the same for you at every arriving 0-point of your travel. That bears repeating; the universe [closes] to you, relative and real, keeps on [closing] to you (from its split), before you as the traveler. But no matter what direction you look out as the traveler, though, the distant collapsed horizon has kept, and keeps, its exact distance from you (receding before and following behind, no different from the Planck Horizon distantly down, down, and in from every atom of your makeup (the two being one and the same constant of distantly collapsed horizon whether up and out or down and in)).

This universe relative / real closing up to merge to one before you (well, almost one), and opening in expanding split into the two of relative and real behind you, happens when you walk or drive down the street. It's just so close to you (so indistinguishable) it isn't big enough for you to notice... usually! It's big enough for a precisionist satellite in space above the Earth to have trouble with, to have to be compensated for, though. Not only around us [out here], but regarding quantum mechanics that inevitable split between relative space-time and real space-time, even at that tiny of a separation between, can drive scientists crazy (not only having to do with the difference between real and relative but because the relative itself, being what it is, can split itself many apparent and varying space-times over).
Well if we break down the quantum world into it's real and (nothing) parts when we travel to Mars do we really go the distance to Mars or just traverse the empty space from Quanta orbit to Quanta orbit.
Then we have all the main items like matter that are 99.9% nothing themselves.

If we remove all the (Nothing) in the trip how far away is Mars Really?
Distance could easily be an illusion or just traveling through mostly nothing as part of the quantum worlds idea of distance/time/activity.

When we remove the 99.999etc that is (nothing) from the universe how big is it?

A flat universe that distance is illusion?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY