Editor's Choice: The Illusion of the Expanding Universe

Whoops, I didn't click the "read all article comments" link. Apparently several of you noticed that error. Eek.

'tis daycant like

Barbour does not want to believe in time anymore because he is nearing the/his point in time 'where' his experience of it will cease to exist. That, plus it would bring chemical pleasure to have a sense of accomplished purpose, instead of a chosen meaningless lifetime of thought dedication.

I would have to say he is right about skeptics. It is easier to believe there is no time rather than no motion. Things either have to be changing position or position needs to be changing things. Think about that. Any ideas surrounding position changing things please email me, thepantherisin@yahoo.com.

We live in space for a period of time. All the math and physics (my educational experiences) were concerned with these dimensions. With what, then, shall Julian Barbour describe existence?

@MUNK

Was that really necessary?

Barbour say time is an illusion.

My vision is that we have to distinguish between physical time, neuronal time and math time.

yours amritAttachment #1: 2_MATHEMATICAL_SPACETIME__NEURONAL_SPACETIME_AND_TIMELESS_QUANTUM_SPACE_arXiv.doc

Timelessness, and relativity. What is a point? Infinitely small to Infinitely big. Time doesn't exist in a point. Mass seems to dictate gravity. In a point envelope, time is absent. Looking backwards in discovery the 4th dimension is only a point which comes before the third dimension. Einstein was the most intuitive thinker I understand by our instruction method. Quantum Mechanics is a sight stemming from relativity as man unravels the rope to find the point of origin. Humans are subjects in time with finite existence. Doubt it an you will die before figuring anything out, but the 4th dimension is timeless and nothing more than a point we exist within. In the case of humans, you must ride the cusps of limits, to see what is on the other side.

Davi the point is that change run in timeless quantum space.

Their velocity (run of clocks included) is relative to the density of quantum space.

Less space is dense, more space is curved and stronger is gravity. Stronger is gravity lover is velocity of change.

yours amrit

"To get a handle on Mach's viewpoint, imagine a particle spinning out in space. If there were no stars forming a backdrop against which to measure the particle's motion, can we really say that the particle is moving? To Mach, the answer was no, in an empty space there is no distinction between the particle spinning and the particle being stationary."

By its sheer existence, the "particle" can NOT be in empty space as the particle itself occupies space. To say that the particle is spinning implies movement. It IS moving relative to itself, i.e. the outer layer of the particle changes relative to its center.

Anon,

"By its sheer existence, the "particle" can NOT be in empty space as the particle itself occupies space. To say that the particle is spinning implies movement. It IS moving relative to itself, i.e. the outer layer of the particle changes relative to its center."

Very good point. It would necessarily have centrifugal force.

I think physics will eventually accept that space is an equilibrium state.

John, elementary particles are compressed energy of the quantum space. Particle that does not change density of quantum space is mass-less. Particle does not occupies space, space is also inside of particle. Particle is where space is more dense. See more on file attached.

Yours AmritAttachment #1: Quantum_Space_and_Gravitational_Motion_of_Massive_Bodies.doc

Hi all

"To get a handle on Mach's viewpoint, imagine a particle spinning out in space. If there were no stars forming a backdrop against which to measure the particle's motion, can we really say that the particle is moving? To Mach, the answer was no, in an empty space there is no distinction between the particle spinning and the particle being stationary."

I think the point of this statement is that without any other physical object, there is no reference point by which to quantify the particle's spin or any other motion. Try calibrating a 24 hour clock with only the Earth existing in an empty void! Yes, the particle, as specified, may possess spin and would therefore have intrinsic angular momentum, but this could only be measured *internally* as anon said.."relative to itself", this is of no use to an observer. That is the whole essence of relativity & Machian principles.

Cheers

amrit,

And possibly the opposite is true. Empty space is less dense, so that from the perspective of dense space, it is expanding, just as dense space is gravitationally collapsing. When you add the two together, they cancel out and the result is an overall flat space, or equilibrium.

Roy,

You are making the assumption of a perfectly objective, external observer, yet observation requires some frame of reference and in this case, the only reference is the spinning particle.

John

Distribution of energy in the universe tends to be homogeneous. Mass is structured condensed energy of the space. Around mass space is less dense.

Mass change density/curvature of space and that generates gravity.

yours amrit

amrit,

Gravity is a process, not static, so it is drawing in what might be defined as space, or at least what occupies it. This means the area between gravity fields is losing this structure, so since gravity is condensing space, then it must be expanding between gravity fields and this is exactly what we see with redshift. This doesn't mean gravitational objects are actually moving away from each other, as the expansion is effectively falling into the gravity wells. Of course, these wells are then radiating energy back out into this open space.

Dear John

We know that 80% of red shift has origin in gravitational shift. So might be universe do not expand.

In General Theory of Relativity original solution for gravity is change of curvature of cosmic space. In original papers on General Relativity (1916) Einstein did not mention gravitational waves. This idea arises few months later in order to resolve "action on distance". Here wee see that there is no action on distance. Gravitational motion is result of change of density/curvature of quantum space.

In today's physics the conviction still prevails that gravity works directly between massive bodies. Research here shows that mass changes structure of timeless quantum space and this change generates gravitational motion. There is no direct attraction force between massive bodies. Hypothetical gravitational waves emitted and absorbed by the mass seem to be fictitious entities. Gravity motion is result of dynamics between mass and density/curvature of timeless quantum space.

More about the subject see:

Amrit S. Sorli, Density/curvature of Quantum Space Generates Gravitational Motion

http://vixra.org/abs/0910.0007

yours amrit

Amrit,

"Gravitational motion is result of change of density/curvature of quantum space."

The only way to change the density is either to expand the volume, or reduce the energy. Since gravity is the contraction of volume, this leaves reducing the energy. The energy being lost is the spectrum of electro-magnetic radiation that is expanding out across space. So this expansion of the volume of radiation reduces the volume of gravitational mass.

So maybe light is the real gravity wave.

John

cosmic space is a kind of energy. We do not know much about it.

My proposal is that space has density. More mass in a given volume less dense is space. Change of density of space generates gravity.

yours amrit