Planes Of Space And Time... And Velocity

Aug 14, 2020
168
37
110
According to Einstein's works as I've read them, among others, space and time are tractable, pliable, and it is my contention that that pliability (expansion and contraction) of space and time exists in planes of velocity.... velocity as plane (as the Universe's (U) pre-existent scales, levels, planes, of hyper-space).

I wonder why is it that physicists will have time stretchable, expand and contract time, and have space be absolute when that cannot be the reality. If space is included as three of four dimensions all united and merged, it cancels the picture of space-time as being really time alone, the picture physicists present to us so often (space in fact disappearing from the picture as being tractable [with] time's tractability). In unity, in merger, all travelers' space / time is then always exactly equal to all observers' space / time -- just not in the same room so to speak (the last thing in the Universe you would want them to be is in the same room, though that is a picture only too often presented to us (a real-time observer observing, immediate to him, a real-time traveler traveling somewhere else in real-time space --in fact actually putting them both in exactly the same room at exactly the same time); it would, in fact, be the total annihilation of both as if matter and anti-matter were to embrace).

The non-local, such as infinity, is non-relative (is not relative; has no relativity (thus is non-local 'non-relativity')). Following many others who've said the same thing, I've said that relativity breaks down, 'local' always being finite, it divides out, and/or within (going away to the "the universe(s) of the small,' the many of "quanta"), to two or more (to infinity). Those four dimensions of space and time merged exist on many planes, many levels, many scales. An infinity of planes, levels, scales, going away from relativity, away from the local, up [and] down level, out [and] within scale. The planing, the scaling, the tractability, the pliability, of the four dimensions, is altogether 'hyper-space' and 'hyper-space' can be and is traveled. Velocity's effect is space / time tractability. Velocity is on planes of velocity. It is planes of velocity.

The universe is said to be an infinitely flat plane... as well as being said to be an infinite number of [bubble] universes. So what! To kind of copy Stephen Hawking's contrariness, its 'flat' is infinite in its depth of flat. Its 'plane' is infinite in depth of [planes]. The bubbles can be inflated and deflated (expanded and contracted), the universes can be taken, warped, to the large; the universes can be taken, warped, to the small; the universes can be warped in [all] four of their dimensions (their united, merged, four dimensions) of space / time. All it takes is acceleration and/or deceleration to some plane of velocity. Velocity [is] plane (is hyper-space).
 
Last edited:

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,859
652
2,560
FYI, this report indicates in the BB model, space is about 93 billion light years in diameter. Five myths about the Big Bang, https://phys.org/news/2021-03-myths-big.html

My observation. This report says the universe is 93 billion light-years in diameter. "The universe doesn't expand into anything. Scientists don't believe that the universe has an edge. That which we call the observable universe is a bubble surrounding us that is 93 billion light-years in diameter. The more distant something is that we look at, the farther back in time we're seeing. We can't observe or measure anything farther away than the distance light has managed to travel towards us since the Big Bang. Since the universe has been expanding, the observable universe is counterintuitively larger than 14 billion light-years. But scientists calculate that the universe outside our bubble is much, much larger than that, perhaps infinite."

My observation. This means 3D space is expanding faster than c. The cosmology calculators extrapolate H0 back to the formation of the CMBR but not anything before, https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/help/cosmology_calc.html. There is nothing about the expansion rate of space back to Planck time and Planck length like inflation is dancing around or near (according to the phys.org report, perhaps 10^-32 s after BB event). Using CGS units, I can see quickly that space expansion rate(s) changed >= 10^48 order magnitude or more (e.g., 10^-18 cm/s/cm vs. 10^30 cm/s). Also there is the temperature >=10^27 Kelvin used too and vacuum energy density and the problem of the cosmological constant, but set this stuff aside. 3D space expansion rate changes >=10^48 magnitude between the *beginning of the universe* and when the CMBR formed, I think this should clearly be presented to the public concerning expanding space in BB cosmology as well as the cosmological constant conflict. The wrong value for the cosmological constant and space expands too fast, we will not see anything or any structure form.

So concerning velocity, space expands and then slows dramatically to the value(s) for H0 today :) Because of the bubbles in post #1, perhaps this discussion should be part of this here. https://forums.space.com/threads/is-there-multiverse.37809/#post-535181
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atlan0101
Aug 14, 2020
168
37
110
I'm never quite on the same page with you, but I like your posts and your few replies to mine. You do have a strong bent for thinking outside the box (without ever really reaching outside the box (meaning that you have a way of finding and wanting, at the very least, to stretch the confines, the limits, of the box itself)). Thanks for the in-depth reply. As always, go to it, Rod. I'm one of the interested, even energized, followers of your posts.
 
Aug 14, 2020
168
37
110
FYI, this report indicates in the BB model, space is about 93 billion light years in diameter. Five myths about the Big Bang, https://phys.org/news/2021-03-myths-big.html

My observation. This report says the universe is 93 billion light-years in diameter. "The universe doesn't expand into anything. Scientists don't believe that the universe has an edge. That which we call the observable universe is a bubble surrounding us that is 93 billion light-years in diameter. The more distant something is that we look at, the farther back in time we're seeing. We can't observe or measure anything farther away than the distance light has managed to travel towards us since the Big Bang. Since the universe has been expanding, the observable universe is counterintuitively larger than 14 billion light-years. But scientists calculate that the universe outside our bubble is much, much larger than that, perhaps infinite."

My observation. This means 3D space is expanding faster than c. The cosmology calculators extrapolate H0 back to the formation of the CMBR but not anything before, https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/help/cosmology_calc.html. There is nothing about the expansion rate of space back to Planck time and Planck length like inflation is dancing around or near (according to the phys.org report, perhaps 10^-32 s after BB event). Using CGS units, I can see quickly that space expansion rate(s) changed >= 10^48 order magnitude or more (e.g., 10^-18 cm/s/cm vs. 10^30 cm/s). Also there is the temperature >=10^27 Kelvin used too and vacuum energy density and the problem of the cosmological constant, but set this stuff aside. 3D space expansion rate changes >=10^48 magnitude between the *beginning of the universe* and when the CMBR formed, I think this should clearly be presented to the public concerning expanding space in BB cosmology as well as the cosmological constant conflict. The wrong value for the cosmological constant and space expands too fast, we will not see anything or any structure form.

So concerning velocity, space expands and then slows dramatically to the value(s) for H0 today :) Because of the bubbles in post #1, perhaps this discussion should be part of this here. https://forums.space.com/threads/is-there-multiverse.37809/#post-535181
Rod, I suppose you've noticed in the Star Wars films the light sabers in which light only goes so far and no farther, stopping cold. There is light like that in the universe, light that will travel to you, and every other point in the universe as end point horizon, but will never travel to the Big Bang collapsed horizon, to the left of you, nor to the Big Bang collapsed horizon, to the right of you. It will never pass any point in the universe to the next point passed that point. You rounded off to 14 billion light years, and that is all the distance that that light will ever travel, flat. 14 billion light years from BB horizon to you, is effectively horizon to horizon for that particular light. It will never pass any point by and travel 14.1blyrs, 14.2blyrs, 14.5blyrs, 15blyrs, and so on and on to 28blyrs. 14 billion light years is its max.

Andromeda's light, as extending history passing points, will pass you by on its way, passing points up to a certain point, but it will never reach that BB horizon point (as what source history point it started out as) anywhere at all, either. It will be buried. Any frozen frame of light in any sequential stream (the frame a single-sided two dimensionality) travels, as light, strictly forward in space and all any observer will ever observe -- regarding time -- is history (histories). You, like every other point in any local, relative, universe, are the mountain crests, the end point 0-points, the more or less absolute front edge horizon of space / time. That light, like Luke Skywalker's light saber light has a space / time barrier -- of about 14 billion light years -- it will not pass and you (in general you) are it, the leading edge that stops it cold. Andromeda's light (as history) that passes you and many other local points by, also has an eventual barrier at some point in space / time it will not pass. But it is a history already, too (no matter that it is a local history), that simply becomes more of a history, and more of a history, as it travels forward in space and backward in time (here, it already traveled 2.2 million years rearward in time) until it reaches that collapsed horizon in space and 14 billion years to the rear in time, then stops cold. Andromeda's light stream then traveled forward in space [14 billion x 6 trillion miles], while traveling backward in time 14 billion years. The future present disappeared, or got buried in history (histories), on the way. all any observer at that point 14 billion x 6 trillion miles distant in space would perceive to be 14 billion light years away is the collapsed horizon of Big Bang. They would not observe a historical Andromeda, any kind of historical Andromeda, at that distance. And any traveler who might have traveled (possibly via wormhole) to that point, would only observe what the local observer is observing.

That distant horizon is really something else. The infinite Big Crunch Universe (U) closing up (super-positioning?) its infinity to the horizon of an infinity of finite local universes (that infinity, those universes, also correlative), and making use of it (making it useful) as the Big Bang fountain of youth / horn of plenty (obviously) up and out, and as the Planck horizon down and within; both of them one and the same horizon. The equivalent of, as I call it, Hawking's particle that has six faces; [is] six different individual particles while never being anything but the one particle. Everyone and everything, every local universe of an infinity, every dimensionality of a multiverse, is this side of that horizon.... is, at one and the time, in that closed up horizon of an infinite Big Crunch Universe (U); my mind's eye seeing Hawking's "Grand Central Station."

Here, the only scientists who seem to be closing in on that collapsed horizon, getting any closer to it, are the ones working the LHC. With [their] every find, I seem to be closer. It's almost like they're heading where I've been (mind's eye, of course). If only I could explain better. Of course... they do explain small, intricate, detail better, like you do in your portion. And not just those at the LHC:

'Like Magic,' Physicists Conjure Curious Quasiparticles | Quanta Magazine

Sorry Rod, I got into runaway mode again. A space -- and time -- traveler roaming and picturing.... hugely.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Aug 14, 2020
168
37
110
Rod, I should have included this concerning the LHC just to point to a specific example when I say, "That distant horizon is really something else." Also "...., and as the Planck horizon down and within; both of them one and the same horizon."

Strange pattern found inside world’s largest atom smasher has physicists excited | Live Science

"From a drop of water a logician can infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other...." A. Canon Doyle: Sherlock Holmes: A Study In Scarlett (which, for decades I've had the entire set of Sherlock Holmes in my library, as well as having the entire set of Jeremy Brett / Sherlock Holmes television presentation in my video library ( the above, from 'A Study In Scarlett', easily stands alone to make a point)).

There is more than one way to approach that most distant (collapsed) horizon because, in fact, the non-locals of the infinite and the infinitesimal are one and same non-local of infinite when you remove the local of the finite from the picture. There, then, is no difference whatsoever in the two. There, then, is no difference whatsoever between the infinite mass density (the Big Crunch) and the infinite of the other side of exactly the same coin, hole... well (the Big Hole (the Big Well)). Infinite (infinite Universe (U)).... closed up to horizon, collapsed horizon -- and, putting back into the picture the local, relative, finite -- that which fronts the infinite and the infinitesimal, the Big Bang horizon and the Planck horizon (repeating for the hundredth time, "one and the same most distant, collapsed, horizon (correlative; then, that 'constant' of horizon, that 'eternal' horizon, becoming of a use (then made useful) to the Universe (U) as fountain of youth / horn of plenty (or, as noted physicist Roger Penrose famously put it, "The Table of God."))).

"From a drop of water....."
 
Last edited:
Aug 14, 2020
168
37
110
Once more into the breach, as the saying goes, if you are still with me, Rod. As I pointed out, if I didn't lose you in the process, there is no real "Big Bang" horizon to "Big Bang" horizon --regarding light, looking up and left to right, or, rather, looking up and north to south, east to west, whatever, out to that dome enclosing us in seemingly every direction out. The real horizon to horizon is what I've indicated it is over and over again, the Big Bang horizon to the Planck horizon as the real circle to and into itself. That is the real side to side, the real end point to end point, most especially for light coming from far, very far, away in the universe (u). The light won't pass from the north to the south horizon of the local bubble universe. It won't pass from the east to the west horizon of the local bubble universe. Because those directions aren't the horizon to horizon from, of, and to the frontage of infinity.

Think also of it this way. Any time a traveler travels the universe, or any part of it such as from the observer's home to the grocery store on Earth, the horizon is not only a distant constant from him [out there] (Big Bang constant), but it is equally a distant constant from him within him (Planck constant), the horizon(s) always maintaining... Big Bang collapsed horizon constant and whatever 0-point center constant (including you) of infinity.

One other point, I hope, having to do with how it is THOUGHT of. You, I am sure, will always (single mindedly) think and speak of the Big Bang in the past tense alone as a one off event. Where as I will think of it, and always speak of it, as a past, present, and future, [constant horizon] event (super-positioned) (correlative). As an eternal, "timeless", event horizon having [place] in the Universe (U), the same as I think and speak of the Planck horizon (its other being: Its single being). I fail sometimes but I try not to fault you or anyone else -- and should not fault you or anyone else-- for this way of thinking of it, since it, the past, is after all one third of the dimensional way I think and speak of it. In this very particular respect, to try the humor of a Don Rickles but hoping you won't be too offended by it, it's sometimes difficult being a 3-dimensional thinker having discourse with a 1- to 2-dimensional thinker. Stephen Hawking said it was difficult for him to rise to 2-dimensional thought, much less 3-dimensional. Of course he was seriously joking. But it does take hellish concentration and long practice to hold it together. It's better, too, if you're starting base is having been identified by testing as being innately a "visual mathematician" (which of course has little, if anything, to do with being a 'mathematician' as such). "From a drop of water..."
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY