Request for permission to share a post from astronomy.stackexchange.com

[marcin]

I'm asking for this permission because I want to attract as much attention as possible to the lack of the basic, scientific integrity of Astronomy and Astronomy Meta Stack Exchange trying to conceal a fundamental error in cosmology. I've managed to share my post on openastronomy.org's chat, physicsdiscussionforum.org and scienceforums.net. Unfortunatelly, the whole thing is not just a single post, but 3 interleaved posts and consists also of my screenshots of the discussions deleted by moderators in attempt to conceal what I'm showing.

I put all my life and academic authority into this request - Master of Science in Physics majoring in Mathematic and computer modeling of physical processes - University of Warsaw, Poland.

 

[COLGeek]

As long as your posts follow our site guidelines, you will be fine.

Redirecting to other sites is not allowed.

If your posts violate our rules, they will be removed. We are not interested in your disagreements elsewhere.

 

[marcin]

As long as your posts follow our site guidelines, you will be fine.

That's the problem - sharing a link to the external source is against the guidelines. Am I allowed to do that in this case?

 

[COLGeek]

What are we talking about? Images?

Those aren't uploaded here anyway. We recommend using sites like imgur.com and then posting links here. That is allowable.

You must also use public links. Nothing that requires members to need an individual account to view.

 

[marcin]

Redirecting to other sites is not allowed.

If your posts violate our rules, they will be removed. We are not interested in your disagreements elsewhere.

I acknowledge.

 

[marcin]

What are we talking about? Images?

Those aren't uploaded here anyway. We recommend using sites like imgur.com and then posting links here. That is allowable.

You must also use public links. Nothing that requires members to need an individual account to view.

Sure. Apart from the links to the posts on astronomy.stackexchange.com, I would be pasting a public links to the screenshots of the discussions.

 

[COLGeek]

If sharing the discussions is just to vent your differences with others, that is of no value here.

Post your content directly to this site and converse with the community, free from any biases elsewhere.

 

[marcin]

If sharing the discussions is just to vent your differences with others, that is of no value here.

Post your content directly to this site and converse with the community, free from any biases elsewhere.

I will really think about. Thank You.

 

[COLGeek]

My pleasure. If you have any other questions, please ask.

 

[marcin]

What are we talking about? Images?

Those aren't uploaded here anyway. We recommend using sites like imgur.com and then posting links here. That is allowable.

You must also use public links. Nothing that requires members to need an individual account to view.

Is it acceptable?

 

[Jim Franklin]

I am not going to get into a long debate on this, your maths is flawed and so is your reasoning, but you are not alone in that, it is a complex topic nthat has many "rabbit holes" one can get themselves lost in.

However, in the last few weeks a paper has been published by Antonia Seifert, Zachary G Lane, Marco Galoppo, Ryan Ridden-Harper, David L Wiltshire in The Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society entitled Supernovae evidence for foundational change to cosmological models which calls into question the need for Dark Energy.

The new evidence supports the "timescape" model of cosmic expansion, which doesn't have a need for dark energy because the differences in stretching light aren't the result of an accelerating Universe but instead a consequence of how we calibrate time and distance.

It takes into account that gravity slows time, so an ideal clock in empty space ticks faster than inside a galaxy.

The model suggests that a clock in the Milky Way would be about 35 per cent slower than the same one at an average position in large cosmic voids, meaning billions more years would have passed in voids. This would in turn allow more expansion of space, making it seem like the expansion is getting faster when such vast empty voids grow to dominate the Universe.

Follow the link that is the paper title to read for yourself. It is open access so you do not need an instituitional login for this paper.

 

[marcin]

@Jim Franklin There's more than that, it's more fundamental and rock solid.

• [arXiv:2406.05050] The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: Slow supernovae show cosmological time dilation out to z∼1
• [arXiv:2306.04053] Detection of the Cosmological Time Dilation of High Redshift Quasars

Thank you for your company in the whole misunderstanding, I don't feel so alone anymore.

I also recommend this video:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuSbqFL6VcY

Btw. You could really use quotation marks when you're quoting someone's article.

 

[Gibsense]

0=(cdt)^2-dr^2
Your saying that the radius of the universe = the age of the universe (?)

Also You mentioned Cosmic Time Dilation ( I have not heard sorry, seen, the phrase before: How would you define this please. I ask because in various threads over the last year I have suggested that the curvature of space may have a similar effect to the curvature of a gravity well producing time dilation. In my case this becomes pronounced at great distances but , if I understand your post, you were talking about a flat universe.

 

[Gibsense]

Indeed, "my" observable universe radius is equal to the Hubble radius or the light travel distance, but I'm not saying it just like that.

Well, it is interesting because I have for about 20 years. But at that time they kept shooting me down even though they could not understand how the 'Age of the Universe' could describe the Hubble Constant so well.

I edited in a further question to the post; it was concerning 'Cosmic Time Dilation'. Not a phrase I had heard before but it may correspond to a suggestion I made about a year ago on this Forum; that universe curvature might show time dilation similar to the dilation from the curvature of a gravity well but I think you were talking about a flat universe. (?)

 

[marcin]

0=(cdt)^2-dr^2
Your saying that the radius of the universe = the age of the universe (?)

Indeed, "my" observable universe radius is equal to the Hubble radius or the light travel distance, but I'm not saying it just like that.

Also You mentioned Cosmic Time Dilation ( I have not heard sorry, seen, the phrase before: How would you define this please.

Cosmic = Cosmological. The difference in the flow of time depending on the universe age, caused by the expansion.
https://forums.space.com/threads/re...stronomy-stackexchange-com.67465/#post-611649
I really recommend this video.

I ask because in various threads over the last year I have suggested that the curvature of space may have a similar effect to the curvature of a gravity well producing time dilation.

That's the same thing.

In my case this becomes pronounced at great distances but , if I understand your post, you were talking about a flat universe.

Yup, "my" universe if flat and that's because its cosmological age is the same at all distances from us if neglect the timescape, that are the differences in the matter density of the universe causing the different flow of time. My assumption is still based on a large scale homogeneity.

Well, it is interesting because I have for about 20 years. But at that time they kept shooting me down even though they could not understand how the 'Age of the Universe' could describe the Hubble Constant so well.

I'm your living incarnation and I know how you felt.

 

[Gibsense]

I'll have a look at the video. There are a lot of theoretical consequences if this is correct.
Aha! Yes exactly that, I think I have seen it before maybe.
Well, not quite that. It was ok explaining 'Cosmic Time Dilation' (nice description) on the basis of high gravity (a gravity well) but on a Cosmic scale, she does not explain where the equivalent gravity well is.

I suggest it results from curvature - not a black hole - but the shape of the universe (maybe gravity and curvature are the same thing even on a cosmic scale). Anyway to make this work it finally dawned on me that the observable universe would have to approximate the actual universe. Not a very appealing conclusion. I'll post the drawing that illustrates how we might misinterpret the data here for convenience shortly if you are interested, however-

In a separate thread, I discussed a Torus as a possibility for the shape of the universe having imagined a transition via a black hole. It now seems possible that the small circle of a Torus can provide the necessary curvature and still allow a massive unbounded 3 Torus universe that is Topologically Flat. (This remains an issue between myself and Jim Franklin but the discussion has been limited).

My mathematics is not good enough bye the way I rely on visualisation (if there is such a thing)

 

[marcin]

For some reason, the post appears inaccessible at this time.

I hope you can see it now.

But anyway I am asking Marcin how he would say it in response to his "I'm not saying it just like that". Just numbers?

Λ⋅g_μν must be equal to κ⋅T_μν with the CMB radiation energy density in T_μν, so Λ⋅g_00 must be equal to κ⋅T_00. That's because Λ⋅g_μη=κ⋅T_μη for a flat, but expanding spacetime.

I'll have a look at the video. There are a lot of theoretical consequences if this is correct.

I know

 

[Gibsense]

We seem to be getting posts with different sequences. My last one posted seconds ago predates your last one. no matter, lol

 

[marcin]

I'll have a look at the video. There are a lot of theoretical consequences if this is correct.
Aha! Yes exactly that, I think I have seen it before maybe.
Well, not quite that. It was ok explaining 'Cosmic Time Dilation' (nice description) on the basis of high gravity (a gravity well) but on a Cosmic scale, she does not explain where the equivalent gravity well is.

Along the cosmological time axis.

I suggest it results from curvature - not a black hole - but the shape of the universe (maybe gravity and curvature are the same thing even on a cosmic scale).

The greater energy density, the slower the time flows. CMB and all other radiation's energy decreases with the expansion.

 

[Gibsense]

CMB and all other radiation's energy decreases with the expansion.

That makes sense to me. Maybe energy density can be linked to shape but will park that for now. Whatever you have cheered me up!

 

[marcin]

That makes sense to me. Maybe energy density can be linked to shape but will park that for now.

It's linked to shape like 1:1. We can neglect cosmological constant within the galaxy - it's not expanding. In this case the Einstein field equation(s) tell us, that physical stress-energy (SEM) tensor must be proportional to the geometric Einstein tensor describing the spacetime curvature at each spacetime point. Good luck to anyone, who wants to have a non-zero, geometric curvature expressed by the Einstein tensor without the corresponding gradient of energy density in SEM tensor at each spacetime point.

Whatever you have cheered me up!

Same here thanks to You

 

[marcin]

And the bigger picture.

Due to the resurrection of timescape cosmology I’m asking myself if our observed CMB redshift is actually equal to the CMB redshift in the intergalactic space. If time runs faster in the latter, then all photons wave period is longer and their redshift is higher.

 

[Gibsense]

The timescape model has a major flaw. The difference between the hills (voids) and valleys (strings of galaxies), which is the difference in the amount of time that has passed, is far too large (billions of years).

This arises from the insistence of astronomers that time has one arrow and only one orientation (the error of assuming time in all locations is parallel ). In my view, time runs orthogonally to space, which means that time will act to maintain any hill/valley shape by maintaining the orthogonal relation to space. To imagine this easily you should think of time as a force acting on space. The diagram helps.
[/URL]

Clearly, the surface of the universe (a multi-dimensional perspective) is rough. Gravity Wells shaping the 3D space (or more conventionally, 4DSpacetime). However, Negative mass (not antimatter - that's different) will produce hills of negative gravity wells. The negative forces will roughly match the positive force of gravity in a flat universe.

However, if the universe has a curvature on a large scale, say as an n-sphere, the extent of the negative mass hill area will slightly exceed the positive depression area and, in total, become a 'force for expansion. As the universe grows, the expansion will slow as the universe becomes flatter. So what explains Dark Energy?

As my previous posts have shown (with n-sphere diagrams), this is again due to the insistence by Astronomers that there is a unified arrow of time the same for all locations. This ignores the basic assumption that time runs 90 degrees to all space dimensions. When will this error be acknowledged it is really simple geometry?

NB Have a look at the "Cosmic Balance" post in the Astronomy Forum regarding Negative Mass

 

[marcin]

You've got me really interested and I really have to think about it before I answer...

I think that their timescape and your timescape may be compatible.

Time rotated therefore shorter in the direction of Radial Time: Dilation = slowed

Exactly. If you project your time vectors onto the vertical axis of a global, cosmological time, you'll get shorter projection of tilted vectors that are perpendicular to the slopes. In your case the shorter the projection, the slower the time flows. That would also mean, that your vertical time vector at the bottom of the valley should be shorter. Sorry for repeating your statement with my own words. Why wouldn't it solve the problem with their timescape?

So what explains Dark Energy?

Me Aaahh, now I get the main problem with their timescape (besides the first one you mentioned). They explain the expansion with these time flow differences. You're rigth, they're wrong about this explanation, but also not wrong about the timescape, but you seem to be even more right about it because of your perpendicular time vectors. However, their cosmological time is also radial in your sense.

What's even more important to me, is that your vectors are not a measure of time which has passed since the BB, but only the measure of the current time dilation at their points. I'm totally convinced, that Now is everywhere and that spacetime temporality lies only in time dilaton (at each spacetime point) , that corresponds to g00 component of the metric tensor. I'm convinced, that time does not accumulate physically, but it's a very handful mathematical tool.

There is a Miss, who thinks very much your way in terms of the radial time, that is a radius of the expanding hypersphere, but she's a total freak. Don't even try to read her About Me, I warn you.

Pseudometric Spacetime by Miss Understands

Knowledge is not power

luxifuxcom.wordpress.com

Now that I think of it, she actually thinks like both of us in part. You can relatively safely read her about me on Astronomy SE - it's light version.

User Miss Understands

Q&A for astronomers and astrophysicists

astronomy.stackexchange.com