Question Isn't expansion just a lorentz transformation through time?

[Greenlight]

the universe was 10^-35 meters a fraction of a second after the big bang, but isn't that a relative size? Relative to our current space/time reference frame? Time ran slower back then but if you were there you wouldn't know it, isn't it the same for space as well? isn't space static but we see it through a changing lorentz factor?

 

[Greenlight]

z = γ (1 + v/c) -1
we don't really know the velocity, its inferred by the redshift observation.
we do have the cosmic ladder so we have a better grasp on distance.
if redshift is proportional to distance can we not substitute distance for velocity?
we can do away with the inferred velocity its not necessary nor accurate, because it's not really a velocity.
A velocity infers a direction of movement. but with expansion no two locations will agree on its vector direction.

 

[Gibsense]

z = γ (1 + v/c) -1
we don't really know the velocity, its inferred by the redshift observation.
we do have the cosmic ladder so we have a better grasp on distance.
if redshift is proportional to distance can we not substitute distance for velocity?
we can do away with the inferred velocity its not necessary nor accurate, because it's not really a velocity.
A velocity infers a direction of movement. but with expansion no two locations will agree on its vector direction.

You seem to be differentiating between recessional speed due to expansion and a velocity through space in the context of 'Lorentz' i.e. for example, the reference to energy required. It would seem that, as no energy is involved in travelling through space to achieve the recessional speed of a galaxy (as a result of the expansion of the universe), the relevance of Lorentz is in doubt.

Your point about substituting distance for velocity is IMO appropriate depending on the context. I don't see why the direction of movement is important nor understand your comment that time ran slower 'back then'

But anyway maybe someone with more competence mathematically than I might comment
Also where are you going with this?

 

[Greenlight]

the Lorentz transformation coefficient is the ratio of the energies of "now" and the past.
neither speed nor velocity are a requirement.

 

[Greenlight]

a random fluctuation created a gravity wave
the wave carried away energy
Therefor energy of the past was greater than the energy now.
a lorentz transformation is required to scale the past to the present or else we get this distorted view that looks like expansion.

 

[Classical Motion]

Would expanding space be an inertial frame or a non inertial frame?

 

[Greenlight]

Would expanding space be an inertial frame or a non inertial frame?

inertial. space doesn't expand, space/time does.

 

[billslugg]

Space expands equally everywhere, thus no one feels any acceleration due to it, thus it is an inertial reference frame. The amount of expansion is very small. On the scale of the Solar System, the Sun gets about 1 meter further away from us every year due to it.

 

[Atlan0001]

An infinitely dense holography of SPACETIME photonic photo-frame holograms equals infinite zero. The grand total of mass matter and mass energy of the cosmopolis then equals zero (((+1) (-1)) = 1/0)). Always inertialessly freely dynamic rather than inert . . . yet, still, always being inertially inert in one dimension of it.

 

[billslugg]

Space and time are inextricably linked. It takes time to get wherever you are going. This cannot be disputed. Thus they are linked. Any two things linked like this must be made of the same building blocks. Thus there is some "thing" that is both space and time. Class discuss quietly while I go to the teacher's lounge.

 

[Classical Motion]

If space expands the same all over, I think one would have to classify that dynamic as an acceleration.

A continuous increase(growing) in the coordinate system. At the minimum, an area acceleration, but probably a volumetric acceleration.

I wonder if this expansion has a point of origin or maybe it blooms from all points of mass.

A growing space. What could it be consuming? Maybe light is giving it growth too.

 

[Atlan0001]

Space and time are inextricably linked. It takes time to get wherever you are going. This cannot be disputed. Thus they are linked. Any two things linked like this must be made of the same building blocks. Thus there is some "thing" that is both space and time. Class discuss quietly while I go to the teacher's lounge.

No they aren't "inextricably linked", Bill. It takes time to get wherever you are going only because you can energetically contract SPACE . . . and that contracts the time -- as a SPACETIME 'Trojan' fourth dimension of SPACE. It doesn't work the other way around! They aren't a singularity!

 

[billslugg]

Class! Come to order. Did I hear someone using all CAPS!! tsk tsk The only "t=0" around here is how long my cigarette breaks seem!

 

[Gibsense]

[url=https://postimages.org/]
https://forums.space.com/[url=https...cc/qM4Fpr87/SR-Time-Dilation2.jpg[/img][/url]
Clearly, S.R shows the definite link between distance (space) and time
https://forums.space.com/[url=https...cc/qM4Fpr87/SR-Time-Dilation2.jpg[/img][/url]
The diagram below shows Special Relativity expressed diagrammatically and shows time dilation for a speed of 0.75 light years per second
https://forums.space.com/[url=https...cc/qM4Fpr87/SR-Time-Dilation2.jpg[/img][/url]


The diagram also shows the link between the expansion of space against time if you imagine the circle to grow larger
[/URL]

 

[Atlan0001]

Class! Come to order. Did I hear someone using all CAPS!! tsk tsk The only "t=0" around here is how long my cigarette breaks seem!

Wrong again, Bill. Too bad, so sad! The 'Infinite MULTIVERSE Universe (U)' is a Universe of all time divided into all times plural . . . mutually canceling to "t=0" for the Universe (U) and an entangled, entangling, concurrent (t=0) REALTIME NOW (t=0) instant moment of immediate universes (u)!

Every traveler traveling ascends in time to every destination located in the future histories (t=-1) SPACETIME, accelerating contraction of the local-relative universe (u) via a solitary-soliton bubble-wave before relative renormalization! Now where does that accelerating ascension in time, the ascensions all always being "spooky actions at a distance", leave every distant observer at all possible distances?! Answer! "Time dilated" into past histories (t=+1) SPACETIME, the same as they observe the "observable universe" (the past histories (t=+1) SPACETIME), including all observed and observable travelers in it!

So, (0-point) REALTIME NOW traveler to (0-point) REALTIME NOW observer entangles (t=0) to (t=0) REALTIME NOW, concurrently existing unobserved and unobservable in a dark universe of future histories (t=-1) SPACETIME (as opposed to the observed and "observable universe" of past histories (t=+1) SPACETIME)!!!!

I'm telling it like it is, Bill. So, too bad, so sad, wrong again, Bill!

Seventy-plus years of interest and study, plus being an "intuitive visual mathematician," I major in past-future histories ((t=+1) (t=-1)) SPACETIME, Bill!

You are one of the few I hate having any disagreement with!

 

[Greenlight]

It would seem that, as no energy is involved in travelling through space to achieve the recessional speed of a galaxy (as a result of the expansion of the universe), the relevance of Lorentz is in doubt.

isn't that what dark energy is? If no energy is involved in travelling through space to achieve the recessional speed of a galaxy, why are we still looking for it?

 

[Gibsense]

isn't that what dark energy is? If no energy is involved in travelling through space to achieve the recessional speed of a galaxy, why are we still looking for it?

Yes you make a good point. I was associating Lorentz with SR Relativity speed through space rather that recessional speed.

 

[Thermoman]

the universe was 10^-35 meters a fraction of a second after the big bang, but isn't that a relative size? Relative to our current space/time reference frame? Time ran slower back then but if you were there you wouldn't know it, isn't it the same for space as well? isn't space static but we see it through a changing lorentz factor?

1916 Albert Einstein ''discovered'' space-time and this was widely accepted . As a consequence of this in 1927 Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître wrote the Big Bang Theory based on available information and concensus . The Big Bang Theory was then accepted by the scientific community and the Church as being the beginning . This allowed science to have their say but also kept God ''in the frame'', George being a Catholic Priest and a part of Vatican Astronomy Science .

I am struggling to find on the internet an original read of Georges work but I do not believe that he meant before the Big Bang there was nothing , this including space. I beleive he meant there was no things , such as matter .

What this implies is that before the Big Big there was pre-existing space and as Newton explained prior , an immovable space . This implication would then satisfy physical application because in Physics , any thing that expands requires pre-existing space to expand into .

So in answer to your question , the underlying space is immovable !

A hint : Try to avoid the use of the word ''static'' when discussing immovable because ''static'' is relative to Electrical charge .

The Space-Time metric expansion is relative to space . Space-time is dynamic in measure ,where space is a constant measure !

(x0,x1,x2,..........x^n,) Any (x,y,z,) can be measured within (x^n,y^n,z^n,)

Space being n-dimensional !