Check - the BB is 23.25 billion light-years away spatially

[Gibsense]

1. Time Zero - Big Bang to Date - is approx 13.8 billion years.
2. Time Zero measured spatially from now to then is 23.25 billion light-years (If we are a hypersphere)
3. The Hubble Constant relationship is the universe's expansion derived from the age (13.8) and the circumference increase. An AI confirmed that it was consistent with the facts.
4. The derived 93 Billion light-year diameter of our observed universe is the circumference although I would make it 86.4 Billion Light years based on the 13.8 billion year age (close enough)
5. The Hypersphere of a Black Hole becomes (wormhole effect time-reversed) the Hypersphere of a wormhole White Hole
6. The boundary of our observed universe is the Event Horizon of the White Hole (our universe)
7. If we were at the Pole, say, by travelling through space we would be approaching the boundary of the observable universe as it receded from us (we would be travelling around the Hypersphere circumference) I.e. a bounded but infinite spatial universe.
8. Our Universe bubble is embedded in a "Greater Mother universe" (Billslugg help)
9. The expectation would be that our "parent" Black Hole had a spin that probably would be transferred to us. The spin would produce a bulge at the equator of our universe. We should look for it.
10. We should expect far-off galaxies to exhibit more maturity than expected and we should use longer wavelength light (more than James Webb) and expect to see further (more galaxies)
11. The AI available are unbiased and can verify - or not - our ideas. Hence the confidence to state this so boldly, lol. Of course just my thoughts alone!

 

[billslugg]

Sorry, never heard of a "Greater Mother Universe". The universe is everything there is. Can't be anything outside of that. There is no "outside" to the universe, it expands within itself, a 3 dimensional analogue to the two dimensional expansion of the surface of a balloon being blown up.

 

[Gibsense]

Sorry, never heard of a "Greater Mother Universe". The universe is everything there is. Can't be anything outside of that. There is no "outside" to the universe, it expands within itself, a 3 dimensional analogue to the two dimensional expansion of the surface of a balloon being blown up.

Sure, that's what a hypersphere is: Analogy: blow up the balloon surface is 3d space etc.
I referred to your post some time ago requiring discipline regarding the word "universe". I could not remember what was said.
But back to the theme. The universe (balloon universe(?) I described as possibly ours) is, of course, 'self-contained'. The 3d surface (of the balloon analogy) has a boundary (event horizon) but the space 'goes on forever' and increases as the 'balloon ' grows.

However, the balloon (bubble universe) can be said to be embedded in a possible (no evidence, unknown but possible) space. The embedding space can have the same dimensions as the balloon hypersphere but be Flat. That is a flat 4 dimensions.
If the embedding space exists in reality (which I think is highly likely), it may host another adjacent hypersphere, a balloon. I notice a proposal for 2 Big Bangs to produce a sister universe adjacent to ours; responsible for dark matter effects, is supposedly the latest scientists' suggestion.
The word 'Universe' is confusingly overused!

 

[Rangerer]

Two thoughts from a non-physicist:
Size of the Universe - there cannot be an ultimate container for the Universe, so there cannot be a measurement of the radius, therefore it is infinite and has no "container-like" qualities.
Black holes - I think I am correct in assuming that black holes are formed by local gravitational forces; so their birth, growth, and existence are purely local phenomena; therefore, since they did not come from anywhere else, they cannot go anywhere else; therefore it's not reasonable to assume they go anywhere, or connect to anything, certainly not the unicorn of cosmology, a "white hole."
One further thought; since the universe is infinite, its existence is also infinite, therefore the BB was simply a local phenomenon, not rare, and not a "beginning" for the true Universe.
That's how I think it goes.

 

[billslugg]

What physicists say:
Size of the Universe: They split the baby. Universe is bounded but infinite. If you go far enough in one direction, you end up where you started.
Black Holes - They are part of our universe since we can see them.
BB - was not local, occurred everywhere at the same time.

 

[Gibsense]

therefore, since they did not come from anywhere else, they cannot go anywhere else; therefore it's not reasonable to assume they go anywhere, or connect to anything, certainly not the unicorn of cosmology, a "white hole."

Yes, this sort of view is rather 'old fashioned'. When I was a lad it was said that the universe was a 'just is' and it did not exist in something - even in nothing. Similarly, the process of time commenced at the BB. This may well be correct but...
Along came String theory with suggestions of plates banging into each other and creating universes. Gradually an 'open-mindedness' toward 'what the universe exists in' has developed. No amount of word games suggesting the universe is all there is alters this, hence the confusing mixture of multiverse and other expressions.
The fact that a cat can be in a box and the box is in a room and the room is in a house destroys your logic

 

[Rangerer]

what's the house inside of? What's the Earth inside of? What's the galaxy inside of?
So, what is the universe inside of - nothing; it has no outside, no end, no container. You stopped your logic thread at the threshold!

 

[George²]

If you go far enough in one direction, you end up where you started

Unverified. Yes you will go around Earth and if you have enough precise orientation will end on starting place. This not prove anything about Universe.

 

[billslugg]

Unverified.

So far, yes, you are correct. We just haven't gone far enough though. It's just around the corner. Any day now.

 

[Gibsense]

what's the house inside of? What's the Earth inside of? What's the galaxy inside of?
So, what is the universe inside of - nothing; it has no outside, no end, no container. You stopped your logic thread at the threshold!

The evidence for this assertion is? Mathematicians talk of Branes, of higher dimensions, of exactly what may be "outside". But, you are correct; outside may be zero but your problem is you have no proof. Or maybe you have and can tell me. Your point of view was a favourite 50 years ago so you have precedent.

 

[Classical Motion]

I think long exposures will always result is square space. More space and more stars. And you can't find an end.

 

[Rangerer]

The evidence for this assertion is? Mathematicians talk of Branes, of higher dimensions, of exactly what may be "outside". But, you are correct; outside may be zero but your problem is you have no proof. Or maybe you have and can tell me. Your point of view was a favourite 50 years ago so you have precedent.

Evidence for my assertion? You have none for yours, neither do I. How many Laws of the universe are there; so far, not many, especially compared to the many theories that exist and appear seemingly every day, trying to further explain the universe. By my logic, 'a nothing' cannot exist in the dimensions we perceive; if some higher dimensions effect it, how could we tell, being 3-dimensional in thought, in substance, and in comprehension?
Seems the truth is still up for grabs; yet somehow in my logic, saying the universe is infinite and does not wrap back around itself, is far more rational than saying a straight line eventually bumps into itself! That is just ludicrous in a Newtonian reality, and I'm sticking with Infinite Universe!
It's a very positive outlook, btw.

 

[Gibsense]

That is just ludicrous in a Newtonian reality, and I'm sticking with Infinite Universe!

Well, you said it: Newtonian. Newton is probably the greatest scientist ever. Lots of his stuff is still used today including space exploration. But in detail is not quite correct. If you use GPS for car navigation this illustrates the point - Newtonian reality is not up to the job.
If your "infinity" idea were real then bear in mind there must be another you. Probably an infinite number that agree with me. Probably 50:50

 

[Atlan0001]

Well, you said it: Newtonian. Newton is probably the greatest scientist ever. Lots of his stuff is still used today including space exploration. But in detail is not quite correct. If you use GPS for car navigation this illustrates the point - Newtonian reality is not up to the job.
If your "infinity" idea were real then bear in mind there must be another you. Probably an infinite number that agree with me. Probably 50:50

Think about what you said above, Gib! You are talking, herein, mirror image duplicates! They won't do anything, go anywhere, differently than you. If you do anything, they've done it, if you've gone anywhere, they've gone there in duplicate universe. If, somehow, you leave the universe, period, in traveling, they've left the universe in traveling, too.

Say our star represents you. You travel to Proxima Centauri, 3.8 light years away, in 4 days via worm hole effect from some unknown edge of the Solar System at this time. Then, at Proxima Centauri upon arrival, you get to look into the "Looking Glass" Mirror Universe (U) and see yourself as you were 3.8 years before, counting your 4 days of travel time. You traveled out into SPACETIME's "hall of mirrors".

 

[Gibsense]

Think about what you said above, Gib! You are talking, herein, mirror image duplicates! They won't do anything, go anywhere, differently than you. If you do anything, they've done it, if you've gone anywhere, they've gone there in duplicate universe. If, somehow, you leave the universe, period, in traveling, they've left the universe in traveling, too.

Say our star represents you. You travel to Proxima Centauri, 3.8 light years away, in 4 days via worm hole effect from some unknown edge of the Solar System at this time. Then, at Proxima Centauri upon arrival, you get to look into the "Looking Glass" Mirror Universe (U) and see yourself as you were 3.8 years before, counting your 4 days of travel time. You traveled out into SPACETIME's "hall of mirrors".

Sure dead right. It shows the nonsense of 'infinity' with 'open' context.

 

[Atlan0001]

Sure dead right. It shows the nonsense of 'infinity' with 'open' context.

You lost me! The open system is all the infinities of traversable wormholes. The opening system is ever invisible, un-observable, "emergent (or jump) SPACE" (line-straight hyperspace / warp space / tunnel space / vector space.... soliton bubble waves (fractal gravitational zooms universe structure).

We "carry our observable universe with us." -- Catastrophe.

 

[Atlan0001]

"We 'carry our observable universe with us.' -- Catastrophe." (thus, always carrying with us a quantum bit of discrete quanta.)

 

[Gibsense]

I think long exposures will always result is square space. More space and more stars. And you can't find an end.

Finding an end is very difficult - in any scenario. Turtles standing on the back of Turtles.
Even the Cyclic Universe ideas fail in this regard (they recycle forever?)
Bring an end to it. The universe appears expands contracts and disappears! lol = nothing = +1 -1 = nothing. Looks like accountancy.

 

[Classical Motion]

I don't think light and curved space will work. They can not mix. The result would not be light as we see it. All light would be blue and compressed as it came into thick space.

 

[Gibsense]

I don't think light and curved space will work. They can not mix. The result would not be light as we see it. All light would be blue and compressed as it came into thick space.

By 'thick space' you equate a density increase (of Space) as a shortening of EMR wavelength but why do you think space gets thicker?

 

[Classical Motion]

Yes indeed I’m going to have to work on that. When I think something is wrong, I like to use the same data, the same dynamics and the same principles to disprove it.

It’s only fair. And it’s a direct opposition without any word or math games. But I find this hard to do with spacetime, because the dynamic and principle is so “special”.

So I went after the various “proofs” of this spacetime, offering other well known dynamics that account for these so called proofs.

But many serious people really believe this dogma. I can’t believe the faith in it. Just to confirm a supposition no one can measure. I think it the greatest falsity of all time.

So, I figured I’m gonna have to get right with this spacetime, so I can turn it back on the itself.

And I’m a little rough around the edges. You bear with me. I’ll catch on, just need a little practice.

I will eventually figure out what property of space changes.

 

[Gibsense]

I will eventually figure out what property of space changes.

Amazing how much fun it is to keep trying especially when some bits fall into place - right or wrong. I have been struggling since age 5 when I was told we all die, lol. It took some believing at that time; the truth can be hard and recognising it even harder!

 

[Greenlight]

1. Time Zero - Big Bang to Date - is approx 13.8 billion years."

I believe the premise is not exactly right.
it may be 13.8 of todays years.
but the frame of reference changes through time.
time ran slower in the past.
nothing has aged 13.8 billion years
its exponentially less.

 

[Atlan0001]

1. Time Zero - Big Bang to Date - is approx 13.8 billion years."

I believe the premise is not exactly right.
it may be 13.8 of todays years.
but the frame of reference changes through time.
time ran slower in the past.
nothing has aged 13.8 billion years
its exponentially less.

Only local-relative times turn and they are past-future histories SPACETIME branches (c=300,000kps (t=+1) (t=-1)) controlled by the trunk (c=1 | t=0). "Apparent time" runs slower, accelerating in slowing, with distance expanding and light-time a constant ('c'). "Apparent time" runs faster with distance contracting, accelerating in contracting, and light-time a constant ('c').

 

[Greenlight]

Only local-relative times turn and they are past-future histories SPACETIME branches (c=300,000kps (t=+1) (t=-1)) controlled by the trunk (c=1 | t=0). "Apparent time" runs slower, accelerating in slowing, with distance expanding and light-time a constant ('c'). "Apparent time" runs faster with distance contracting, accelerating in contracting, and light-time a constant ('c').

That's the way i understand it as well. i think

"Apparent time" runs slower, accelerating in slowing, with distance expanding and light-time a constant ('c').

the further we look back in time and distance, the more expansion we perceive because the further back the more the slowing.


and if we use our imaginations and look forward into the future, we would see that...
"Apparent time" runs faster with distance contracting, accelerating in contracting, and light-time a constant ('c')

we are getting smaller in the universe

and if you imaging shrinking in a room that is not shrinking as fast, and if we didn't know we were the ones shrinking then we would perceive that room as expanding.