Is It Possible That The Universe Could Not Possibly Have Expanded Faster The Speed Of Light?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aug 14, 2020
718
126
2,060
I stated in another thread that the darkness of the universe does not come from a lack of light to the universe but from an over-abundance of light to the universe. Light coming from everywhere to anywhere, from every point of the compass; from every point of the dome of universe. I woke up this morning realizing that I should have added in for 4-dimensionality's sake, from every point of older time to every point of newer time in an infinite depth no astronomer or physicist, nor anyone else, could ever fathom.

There never has been a dark universe as such. And light comes from an infinite Universe as the light before light (and/or light after light), to infinity. And gravity waves before gravity waves (and/or gravity waves after gravity waves), to infinities of gravity waves. No point in space ever lacked, or ever lacks, relativity to its neighboring point in space, so, no point in time ever lacked, or lacks, relativity to its neighboring point in time. With distance, though, it is relativity that collapses, breaks down, not space and not time . . . not space-time. So, this dimensionless point we occupy has always had -- always has -- space, time, light, mass-energy and gravity defining it.

So, not being able to reach beyond the distance of relativity, the distance in space and time beyond relativity's collapse and breakdown, the distance that merges into infinity, some will tell you there is none . . . or even if there is such distance is, it isn't relative.

That it will have local relativity in any real physicality that comes through from that background to this foreground, to all foregrounds, they never give a thought to . . . physicality coming through from background's infinity such as horizon constants of one kind or another for one thing, among other quite possible things (such as the micro-verse being the local, relative, model (and/or projection) of the non-local, non-relative, macro-verse . . . the two possibly being one and the same to the point of (Planck) Big Crunch (M) / (Planck) Big Bang (E)).

It, the observed universe, can, of course, at least by the relative looks of it, expand into its own past of mass-energetic 'wild' (its own future of returning to the 'wild' (its own constant of 'turning' (building up and out from the base-wild, and recycling back to the base-wild, are always passing in turning . . . again, the up and out from mass-energetic wild (the Planck horizon(s)) in evermore complex structuring is building to entropy's crest, then fall back in collapse of complexity to the base mass-energy of the 'wild', the base that never left, never ceased to exist . . . the base that is always present in infinite's constant ('1') of horizon))).

The speed of light in a vacuum ('c'), a constant of speed to us ((+/-)186,000mps ((+/-)300,000)), is a constant of place ('1'), base ('1'), to the infinite Universe, The elastic capable of squaring 'base'. Again, the speed of light is constant in a vacuum. Along with 'g', it probably is the vacuum it is constant in and/or constant to, the Big Vacuum (C^2).
-----------------------------------

It's a Multiverse Universe.

"Reality has so many things that most people would associate with sci-fi or even fantasy." -- Bruno Bento, physicist, University of Liverpool, U.K.

"That's one of the exciting things about math, you can go through a door . . . and you wind up in a completely different universe. It's very much like Alice in Wonderland." -- Jack Morava, mathematician at Johns Hopkins University and inventor of Morava K-theory.
 
Last edited:
Aug 14, 2020
718
126
2,060
Imagination is a good thing.
What are you trying to say?
I said it . . . ponderous but said. But I will add this:

Every night that I stare into the night sky's stare
I see a universe that isn't there
It isn't there again today
I hope, I hope it never goes away -- ('Jist' original to me)
---------------------------------

("Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today

I wish, I wish he'd go away . . ." -- Antigonish, by Hughes Mearns)
--------------------------------

"Communication across the revolutionary divide is inevitably partial." -- Thomas S. Kuhn
 
Last edited:
Aug 14, 2020
718
126
2,060
** I moved this my post here from 'Forum Feedback'. Though a response, I felt its content belonged here rather than there. **

Mass and energy are equivalent. The net total of energy, positive (+) and negative (-), is '0'. Thus, the net total of mass, positive (+) and negative (-), is '0'. You can have essentially an infinite (I make infinity's constant, '1' ((+/-) 1)) positive (+) and/or negative (-) regarding the two equivalents, and the total net result will still always be '0'.

(There is no such thing as separate matter and anti-matter particle "twins." Every single supposed matter particle, everywhere and when situated, is a superposition binary duality (+/-) of matter and anti-matter entirely within its single self. There are no separate universes of the two. There never were. There is, was, and always will be, just the one. And anti-matter (-1) was never destroyed, leaving only matter (+1) in a Universe that loses no information, positive (+) or negative (-). And annihilation is always to '0' ("the total net result will still always be '0'").)
 
Last edited:
Aug 14, 2020
718
126
2,060
** I moved this my post here from 'Forum Feedback'. Though a response, I felt its content belonged here rather than there. **

"Faster than the speed of light." There is no such thing for one simple reason. There is no such thing as a rear end to a single-sided 2-dimensional massless time frame or particle / wave of light. There is nothing to it but front (as in light or time front (light-time front). There is only one direction anything runs concerning light and that is into any light front. And only the speed of the light front is measured by any measuring instrument. It is two things, a time frame and particle / wave.

A traveler running the universe is a space-time / light time traveler traveling time tunnels of futures (+) to his front, and into pasts (-) to his rear for a net of 'Now' (t = 0). The traveler will always be precisely centered in the universe, a position precisely in the middle between horizons, being at radius, and physic, of '1/2' always.

Precisely centered at all times with regard to the universe: If it could be measured, the speed of light would be measured oncoming to his front, a speed of 'c'. To the sides, 'c'. Oncoming from the rear, 'c'. Futures (+) oncoming to his front, pasts (-) oncoming from the rear. Futures (+) oncoming at seemingly less than the speed of light, though the speed of light would be measured 'c'. Pasts (-) oncoming at seemingly greater the speed of light, thought the speed of light would be measured 'c'. The balance between gain in futures (+) to the fore, and gain in pasts (-) to the rear, 'c' and t = 0. If it was Star Trek's 'Enterprise' traveling Sol to Alpha Centauri 4.3 light years away observed from Sol, upon arrival at Alph Centauri, Sol is 4.3 light years away observed from Alpha Centauri, no matter what Enterprise's intervening dislocation of space-time. An exact dislocation ((past for future | future for past) = precisely 'c') during all the intervening time as clocked by the clocks aboard Enterprise, again no matter what Enterprise's intervening dislocation of space-time: 4.3 light years, 4.3 years for light between Sol and Alpha Centauri. Enterprise covers it in four days (say), 4.3 years observed between to pass in four days observed aboard, 4.3 yrs. + 4 dys. = speed less than the speed of light, by a difference of 4 days (and the exchange of Sol (+) for Alpha Centauri (+) / and the exchange of Alpha Centauri (-) for Sol (-) zeroing out 4.3 light years (4.3 years)).

'C' ((+/-) 186,000mps ((+/-) 300,000kps)) maintained its locally closed systemic constancy throughout. Velocity? There are velocities to the universe slower, to enormously slower, than the Earth observer's apparent zero of velocity while standing still beside railroad tracks watching trains go by. Velocities enormously slower than zero opposed to velocities enormously faster than zero. Enormously faster than zero, positive (+) to zero (and accelerating): Distances and spans within the universe contract. Enormously slower than zero, negative (-) to zero (and decelerating): Distances and spans within the universe expand. That sets up the paradox: Slower than 'c' (faster than zero), contraction?! Faster than 'c' (slower than zero), expansion?! At 'c' (at zero), superposition constant!

Gee! How I enjoy 'Schrodinger's cat'!
----------------------------------------------

"It takes three dimensions to describe a point." -- Albert Einstein . . . (Subterranean 0-point, the second dimension of one; the third dimension of two; the fourth dimension of three . . .)
 
Last edited:
Aug 14, 2020
718
126
2,060
** I moved this my post here from 'Forum Feedback'. Though a response, I felt its content belonged here rather than there. **

I thought I'd go ahead and pursue the "Slower than 'c' (faster than zero), contraction?! Faster than 'c' (slower than zero), expansion?!" seeming paradox, but not actually, a bit further.

C = +186,000mps |<(+)----------(-)>| 0 |<(+)----------(-)>| -186,000mps = C.
C = (+/-) 186,000mps.

Herein I state the physic "faster than the speed of light" by mirroring 'c'. It's still 'c', oppositely signed. It has to be the dimension that "faster than the speed of light" gets into. And its consequential product reality will also be different, also a mirror opposite reality, from contraction to expansion. But what exactly that is I'm not yet sure of. I'm trying devilishly hard to stay away from 'c^2' (in and to our universe!) in this rendering but I'm not succeeding at all. Negative 186,000mps to 0 equals a positive rendering of 186,000mps. If the two are actually a hyperplane of 'c', then the two are a square of 'c' (c^2), a squaring of 'c' (c^2), not any doubling . . . or following.

--------------------------------------

Every night that I stare into the night sky's stare
I see a universe that isn't there
It isn't there again today
I hope, I hope it never goes away -- ('Jist' original to me)

---------------------------------
("Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish he'd go away . . ." --
Antigonish, by Hughes Mearns)
 
Last edited:
Aug 14, 2020
718
126
2,060
Picturing touched up to finish it:

Was:

C = +186,000mps | <---------- 0 ----------> | -186,000mps - C

Should have been and now is:

C = +186,000mps |<(+)----------(-)>| 0 |<(+)----------(-)>| -186,000mps = C
C = (+/-) 186,000mps

And within 'C' ('c'):

C = -186,000mps |<(-)----------(+)>| +1 |<(+)----------(-)>| -186,000mps = C
and/or
C = +186,000mps |<(+)----------(-)>| -1 |<(-)----------(+)>| +186,000mps = C

Multi-dimensional both and all!
C = (+/-) 186,000mps

It's a Multiverse Universe.
----------------------------
And I made an edit here too (and I wonder how many, if anyone, will see it (meaning, will get it)):

Every night that I stare into the night sky's stare
I see a universe that isn't there
It isn't there again today
I hope, I hope it never goes away -- ('Jist' original to me)

---------------------------------
("Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish he'd go away . . ." --
Antigonish, by Hughes Mearns)
 
Last edited:
Jan 19, 2022
31
12
35
Is It Possible That The Universe Could Not Possibly Have Expanded Faster The Speed Of Light?

Answer: no
Reasoning: Expansion and velocity are two different things.


The universe's expansion rate should be expressed as delta length per length per delta time. Instead it is expressed as delta length per delta time per length

Velocity is expressed as delta length per delta time.

A way to visualize the difference is with a light sphere. Object with a velocity will not be in the center of it's own light sphere while an object with a cosmological red shift will remain in the center of it's light sphere. This is why the correction factor is different for red shift between the two.
 
Aug 14, 2020
718
126
2,060
Is It Possible That The Universe Could Not Possibly Have Expanded Faster The Speed Of Light?

Answer: no
Reasoning: Expansion and velocity are two different things.


The universe's expansion rate should be expressed as delta length per length per delta time. Instead it is expressed as delta length per delta time per length

Velocity is expressed as delta length per delta time.

A way to visualize the difference is with a light sphere. Object with a velocity will not be in the center of it's own light sphere while an object with a cosmological red shift will remain in the center of it's light sphere. This is why the correction factor is different for red shift between the two.
Problem is, you made all velocity, thus all measure of space (fraction of an inch or millimeter, mile or kilometer) and all time (second and/or hour, whatever) absolute to the measure of the observer on Earth, throughout all space and all time. That simply isn't so. I've read at least one article that said that the diameters of galaxies, and the black hole centers of galaxies, could be expanding right along with the expansion of the universe. Not the stars in the galaxies, not the planets like Earth, not you and not me and not the atoms of this computer, but the space of galaxies and their black holes. I both agreed and disagreed with the article.

Yes, if we were galactic travelers and we were decelerating (and I mean decelerating) in velocity, going negative in velocity relative to the Earth observer's zero of velocity, toward Sagittarius A*, as I see things, we would be decelerating into an expanding diameter of galaxy, an expanding space and time of masses and energies, an expanding center and growing, multiplying, numbers of stars and worlds we had not the slightest clue existed from the diameter we assign to the Milky Way and Sagittarius A* from the Earth. We'd be increasingly into redshifts of light around us and realizing the diameter, thus the radius, of the Milky Way to be vastly expanding, vastly greater in the first place (inside out), than we ever even suspected it to be (outside in). That, or we'd be transitioning, transferring, into some other galaxy, and maybe even some other universe, than the Milky Way and its universe. Our unit measurements by rulers and clocks would not change within our locally closed system, but they would be meaningless -- as they are anyway -- non-locally in an opening system we would be entering into by its expanding vastly around us as we approached it . . . by our contracting into its expansion, so to speak, maintaining our local-relative physics (including length and the measure of 'c' and all that goes with it) without our ever being squeezed, crushed, and imploding into Sagittarius A*.

I deal mostly in accelerating into contracting distances between points of universe . . . and between universes, to go places. Except for dealing in possible transition and transfer, I dealt in expansion of Sagittarius A* above, to arrive elsewhere in either an enlarged galaxy unseen and unknown from Earth, or different galaxy and universe altogether. I tore up the fixed diameter measurement of Sagittarius A" as measured from the Earth. I tore up the relativistically fixed, inertialized, measurement of velocity at the same time in the doing. The observed-relative universe, and the unobserved-real universe, including geometry and measures concerning the two, may be entirely different things.

A traveler traveling away from the Earth will always get increasingly ahead, further and ever further ahead, of the speed of the light (gradually accelerating in getting ahead) that has to cross ever expanding distances, expanding spans of distance, between the traveler and Earth. Light won't keep up because it can't keep up. Thus, it will create a doppelganger of the traveler, one gradually slowing down in space and time and velocity, for any observer fixed increasingly distant to the rear in some rest frame. There will be a growing, a squaring (so to speak), separation between traveler's real and unobservable space-time position and velocity, and its doppelganger's observed space-time position and velocity in the past of both traveler and Earth observer. Now the redshift of the light, if even possible to note, just might measure an accelerating expansion, an ever increasing, difference between reality in relentless motion and change on the spot and relativity's drag down, in motion and change, in light to any distant observer. Only in closing distances, in an accelerating contraction of triangulation, between real traveler, relative doppelgangers (the traveler, too, would observe a relative doppelganger of the observer), and distant observer, will relativity elastically flex to blue-black shift apparent "faster than light"-like fast forwarding in space-time position and velocity. The game changes, the real traveler is then closer than he looks (again, per the 'principle of uncertainty', advanced in position and velocity over the speed of light (anywhere from just slightly advanced to vastly advanced)): Than light (the relativity of light) makes him look to the observer he is advancing upon. The closing of the 'triangle' will be relentless, though. Only upon meeting, upon contact, does the fantastically elastic expansionist / contractionist (sic) 'triangulation' close itself up to 0-point.
 
Last edited:
Apr 13, 2021
338
33
710
The questions.
Is the universe expanding?
Is the universe contracting?
Is the universe accelerating?
Was time and space different 13.7 billion years ago?
Did space and time expand at the speed of light?
Is the universe infinite?
Is there evidence for the BBT?
What was before the BB?
How do vortices form?
And so on
We do have answers to the above.
Some answers base on Religion, opinion and science.
What ever your answer is, be happy.
 
Aug 14, 2020
718
126
2,060
The questions.
Is the universe expanding?
Is the universe contracting?
Is the universe accelerating?
Was time and space different 13.7 billion years ago?
Did space and time expand at the speed of light?
Is the universe infinite?
Is there evidence for the BBT?
What was before the BB?
How do vortices form?
And so on
We do have answers to the above.
Some answers base on Religion, opinion and science.
What ever your answer is, be happy.
Harry, I think you have your own answers already. Are you trying for more and different questions for your answers? If so, there is a heck of a lot of people around who would gladly provide you with endless questions to your answers, whatever they may be.:)
 
Last edited:
Jan 19, 2022
31
12
35
I deal mostly in accelerating into contracting distances between points of universe . . . and between universes, to go places. Except for dealing in possible transition and transfer, I dealt in expansion of Sagittarius A* above, to arrive elsewhere in either an enlarged galaxy unseen and unknown from Earth, or different galaxy and universe altogether. I tore up the fixed diameter measurement of Sagittarius A" as measured from the Earth. I tore up the relativistically fixed, inertialized, measurement of velocity at the same time in the doing. The observed-relative universe, and the unobserved-real universe, including geometry and measures concerning the two, may be entirely different things.
In other words, would it be correct to say, you use no reference frame at all.
 
Aug 14, 2020
718
126
2,060
In other words, would it be correct to say, you use no reference frame at all.
That would be at once both correct and incorrect. And anyone who has been keeping up with me for some time would know what I mean by that. There are many who say, and put in their mathematics, that there is elasticity to time, but none whatsoever to space. You, apparently to me, are one of those people.

I, on the other hand, say that there is exactly the same elasticity to both space and time. at once. Expand or contract time, expand of contract space (expand or contract gravitationally elastic bubbles of space-time). I say that there are many more 'reference frames' than just one. You say, as I understand you, that there is just the one only regarding space: a totally inelastic local-relative closed systemic one.

You, obviously have a view that I use no reference frame at all. It's built-in to what you ask . . . as you asked it. I answer that you, just as obviously, are narrowly locked into one and one only reference frame to a total disregard of any existence of any and all other probabilities and/or possibilities, much less an infinity of them, for reference frames. That, too, is built-in to what you asked . . . as you asked it.

So, "in other words," that would be at once both correct to say and incorrect to say. If you want to keep up with me, you are going to have to learn to think, and start thinking, no matter how hard, or how much of a headache, you might think it is to do, in some dimensionality greater than one. You are going to have to accelerate expanding your 'frontier' of the mind, your "mind's eye" universe, if you want to keep up. You work at it, of a constancy, you can reach up in dimensionality of thought and Universe, eventually.
------------------------

"If I had eight hours to chop down a tree, I would spend seven sharpening my ax." -- Abraham Lincoln.

"From a drop of water, a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. So, all life is a great chain, the nature of which is known whenever we are shown a single link of it . . ." -- A. Canon Doyle, 'Sherlock Holmes: A Study in Scarlet'.

"He is the best sailor who can steer within fewest points of the wind, and exact a motive power out of the greatest obstacles." -- Henry David Thoreau.
----------------------------------------

Every night that I stare into the night sky's stare
I see a universe that isn't there
It isn't there again today
I hope, I hope it never goes away -- Jist original to me.

("Yesterday, upon the stair
I met a man who wasn't there
he wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish he'd go away . . . " -- Hughes Mearns)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY