But this is relative. Entropy if time was positive and you are there in a contracting universe continues the same - or does it/can it?This is all pure conjecture. But don't worry too much about broken eggs reassembling.
But this is relative. Entropy if time was positive and you are there in a contracting universe continues the same - or does it/can it?This is all pure conjecture. But don't worry too much about broken eggs reassembling.
"Verse" means "turn", to turn, wheel turning, rounding, returning. "Entropy", both positive and negative entropy (one way or the other), is the constant of return to the "Wild (weedy chaos)Frontier" universe, including the Hawking constant of life migration in mid-turn to the "Life Zone" 'Midway' between the eternally present constant of 'Perfect End' in and to the equally eternally present constant of 'Endless Beginning' . . . one and the same 'Schrodinger', if not 'Dirac' as well, constant.But this is relative. Entropy if time was positive and you are there in a contracting universe continues the same - or does it/can it?
What I call Hawking time, among others who have tied to it (including me), entangled and entangling concurrent REALTIME NOW t=0, instant and eternal ("for all time"), doesn't stretch. Holographical observable light's coordinate point SPACETIME (t=+1) (t=-1)), yes . . . spontaneous REALTIME NOW instant (t=0), no way (universally instantaneously spontaneous, thus not a chance)! (It has -- comes with -- a guarantee and guarantor, collapsed cosmological (Horizon) constant (/\) P/BB T=1.)Time dilation is a hiccup to the hypersphere model.
Those TD radii progress more slowly and distort a uniform hypersphere.
Black holes would be the most extreme case.
Space would have to stretch further to conjoin the span of temporal variances.
Consider four observers A, B, C and D standing in straight line, say each 100m from the next.
Have I made a logical error - it seems so.
Cat Hi, your statement has forced me to think more about how to answer your points. Consequently, I realise that answers to this and many other questions discussed have been staring me in the face for years. So much so that I think we need a new thread probably titled "Onions, Spheres, Time, Light Cones and Gravity.f A and C cause a loud noise "simultaneously", B will hear both at the same time.
However, D will hear the noise from C before the noise from A.
(This assumes nothing intervening changes the speed of sound)
This may be a simpler caveat than you had in mind, but it does show simply that "now" is different for different observers.
"Onions, Spheres, Time, Light Cones and Gravity"
The analogy is identical. I identify your one dimension higher as being a hypersphere. That validates the surface as 3D.. . . . . . . . .
I am finding it a bit difficult here because I am using the spherical surface in a different analogy.
I have to work out your analogy, then check how it works with mine. Interesting if it works for both.
Of course, both are just analogies so both can be right (useful) in context.
Could you provide, please, a very short summary of this? I am trying to compare the assumptions.
In my analogy, See below. ***
I have looked in detail at yr #1 and #2. Have you seen my ref in #3. Also please see #7.
I do have a problem with the number of words you are using. I do understand that it is a difficult matter to understand. I am sorry you have had problems with other sites, but I don't stop easily, so let's try to find some common linguistics?
In my analogy, the surface of the sphere is the "universe" for a flatlander. Thus his/her observed universe can be boundless, yet still expand. This universe can be understood as expanding, but solves the paradox of "expanding into what?". The answer is apparent to a being capable of understanding "one dimension higher". In this case, us. Granted it is only an analogy, it postulates an answer which could work. ***
Can you state your analogy as simply as that? It may not be possible, I grant you. . . . . . . . . .
Cat
P.S. Increase in radius, in my analogy, represents view by observer of higher dimension.
Cat Hi, your statement has forced me to think more about how to answer your points. Consequently, I realise that answers to this and many other questions discussed have been staring me in the face for years. So much so that I think we need a new thread probably titled "Onions, Spheres, Time, Light Cones and Gravity.
I am not sure about Gravity but it probably gets included.
There is no doubt I need help to express the stuff mathematically. I got an 'A' level GCE in maths but my further education was too diverse a subject to build on it. I am 80 and have lost most of that knowledge except simple arithmetic. Simple geometry is still within my grasp though, lol.
To convince you that it is worth bearing with me I would like to state something that you can verify easily (if you are good at arithmetic). It is stunning and simple.
Increases in the radius of a circle and therefore the increase in its circumference equal the Hubble Constant.
NB It is necessary to accept the interchangeability of length and time units i.e. a light year = a year ( plus 1 second = approx 300,000km)
Variations 'in reality' are easily explicable and the answer to your statement is contained in the description of light cones, onions, balloons, Spatial 4D and Time. However, the 'imagination energy' needed is large and hence the above statement shows it would be worthwhile if you verify it.
It is all geometry. Even, I think, the expansion of space and gravity-bound areas but the nature of time is an essential factor. I am frustrated by the fact that diagrams are much easier. I tried to set up something on a free website as I published one on the subject many years ago called "Timewave" to illustrate the statement above. It is now lapsed and the new methods although simpler I find confusing - it must be my age!
I can draw some diagrams and email them to anyone interested. Also, I can email an Excel worksheet that gives the Hubble Constant for any given age of the Universe (without locking so the working is visible but it is arithmetic and probably an intelligent person can drastically simplify it).
I must cease for now and get my partner a cup of tea (6.30 am) to keep her onside, lol.
Increases in the radius of a circle and therefore the increase in its circumference equal the Hubble Constant.
Hubble's law, also known as the Hubble–Lemaître law, is the observation in physical cosmology that galaxies are moving away from Earth at speeds proportional to their distance. In other words, the farther they are, the faster they are moving away from Earth. Wikipedia
The analogy is identical. I identify your one dimension higher as being a hypersphere. That validates the surface as 3D.
The issue of 'expanding into what' is not a problem the way I think. The canvas or embedding space is 4 spatial dimensions (or more - doesn't matter). The 'outside' existence or not is at this level irrelevant I think.
The point is the 3d Shape is a hypersphere. NB I use that technically to mean the surface of a ball.
NB I use that technically to mean the surface of a ball.
Each passing second extends the radius (of the hypersphere; your balloon) by 299,792,458 meters.
Each second added (299,792,458 meters) to the radius adds 2Pi(r) to the circumference of the hypersphere. That added circumference represents added space from expansion as time passes (space is added as a function of time).
The yuck bit is converting the added amount into the terms of the Hubble Constant and working the arithmetic. In the case of reality 13.8 billion years = Hubble Constant 70.855 when you work it out.
Hence I stated, "Increases in the radius of a circle and therefore the increase in its circumference equal the Hubble Constant."
You referred to some of your previous posts - I need to check them now. Oh partner asking for help to do something - will check soon
Each passing second . . . . . . . . .
I find confusing - it must be my age!
NB I use that technically to mean the surface of a ball.
Atlan0001,Atlan0001,QUOTE
Thank you for your comments.
According to Google:
What I actually posted was:QUOTE
My emphasis.QUOTE
From:
QUOTE
Would you not agree that this is a perfectly acceptable use of the term "superbeing" in this context, making a comparison, as it does, with a "flatlander"?
Whilst I would thank you again for your extensive comment on this point, I do feel that it was slightly excessive suggesting this,
where mere humans were clearly what I described in parentheses as "superbeings".
I do further stand by this latter comment as possibly relevant to any "higher beings", even when we are describing rabbits to amoebae.
I hope that you will take this reply in the friendly and constructive manner as I intend it.
Cat
What I actually posted was:
My emphasis.
From:
Goodbye infinity and all that infinite singularity and infinite density descriptions | Space.com Forums
As you will notice, the first part of this, rendered bold, simply states that the
Thus, in this context, we would qualify as superbeing, and please note that I have put superbeing in quotes to emphasize this.QUOTE
From the second part, rendered bold,
QUOTE
Whilst I would thank you again for your extensive comment on this point, I do feel that it was slightly excessive suggesting this,
where mere humans were clearly what I described in parentheses as "superbeings".
I do further stand by this latter comment as possibly relevant to any "higher beings", even when we are describing rabbits to amoebae.
I hope that you will take this reply in the friendly and constructive manner as I intend it.
Cat
QUOTE
What I actually posted was:
My emphasis.
Thus, in this context, we would qualify as superbeing, and please note that I have put superbeing in quotes to emphasize this.QUOTE
you will see that this further emphasises the point by substituting "beings with the ability to perceive higher dimensions" (we being one such) in place of superbeing.QUOTE
QUOTE
I have a moment to respond. I think that - just a guess - for quantum stuff reality is a reaction to events. But for space, there is a sort of independence of events and perhaps mass. Maybe if we can do the onions and time we can tackle this. If we can all agree, lol that should keep us busy!Gibsense,
Even if absolute space / time do exist, you are correct about caveat(s).
Consider four observers A, B, C and D standing in straight line, say each 100m from the next.
If A and C cause a loud noise "simultaneously", B will hear both at the same time.
However, D will hear the noise from C before the noise from A.
(This assumes nothing intervening changes the speed of sound)
This may be a simpler caveat than you had in mind, but it does show simply that "now" is different for different observers.
Another question. Does space exist at all if there are no objects present, by which you can measure it? If you are in totally empty space - no stars visible - you would be able to move a finger from shoulder to hand, but would this give you the impression of space which you could move through? If, over a long period, you spoke a number of random different words (say 100) would you know (remember) the order after, say, a year? You would have no need to know either. You would not need to invent words like before, after, nearer, further, since you would have no one to communicate with.
Coming back to the quote, why do you think that that absolute space and absolute time do exist?
Cat