Editor's Choice: The Illusion of the Expanding Universe

Georgina

Idea of ether is from esoteric, fifth elenet of the universe.

There is no evidence of ether.

Physical space i.e. gravity field itself is ether

saying that some unknown energy is filling the space is equal as saying that time is part of space

all what has no experimental evidence should be removed from fundamental elements of physics

-graviton that matter emits

-cronos as fundamental particle of space-time

-time as part of space

fundamental medium in which stellar objects and elementay particles move is gravity field

so fundamental physical realities are:

-matter

-energy

-gravity field

-motion

yours amrit

Roy,

yes it is compatible. Science is about observation. Absolute objective reality can not be observed. The limit of science has been reached. It is not possible to directly access or comprehend absolute objective reality to obtain explanation. As soon as data is transferred to the senses and processed it ceases to be objective reality and has become subjective interpretation of the data. Therefore models are required to explain our subjective reality experience.

A hole can not exist without a something to be a hole in. Nothing requires something to be defined itself. However something can exist without being detectable.

Space and room ,yes. Curvature of what? I have no problem with the existing accepted space-time model and curved geometry of space-time. It fits with much of observed reality and answers many questions but that does not mean that it is actual objective reality.It is just a model. It can not be used to show that something, that has not been observed, can not be proposed in an alternative model. Especially if that alternative model can potentially answer more of the the foundational questions.

i forgot last esentil element of physical reality

-observr

-matter

-energy

-gravity field

-motion

I forgot last essential element of physical reality: observer

So essential elements of physical reality are:

-observer

-matter (massive bodies, stellar objects, elementary articles

-energy (electromagnetic energy, life energy)

-medium in which matter and energy exists: physical cosmic space i.e. gravity field gravity field

-motion

PS writing without glasses does not work for me anymore.....I discovered some mistakes, sorry, amrit

"Dr. Barbour is perfectly right: there is no time in the universe"

The experimental detection of spacetime foam will be the proof that spacetime really exist. Therefore, the Barbour-Amrit's timeless theories will fall very soon.

In the construct that I am proposing these fundamental things are linked.

Change of position in quaternion space is "motion" energy. Kinetic,observed potential(vertical 3D vector), promotional (loss of potential along 4th dimension).

Change in position of matter causes the disturbance of the medium of space which can be considered either as a material disturbance or an energy change,it is both.

Change in position of matter along the 4th scalar spatio-energetic dimension causes the gravitational field, which may be described as the result of dynamics of a medium or potential energy gradient.

The change in position of matter along the 4th scalar spatio-energetic dimension is the cause of gravitational mass and mass energy.

Spatial changes and dynamics of the medium of quaternion space, which may be described in terms of energy changes, gives electromagnetic energy, and the forces.

Bodies of matter, gravitational mass, mass energy, "motion" energy, electromagnetic energy, forces including gravity all exist because of the continuous changes in position of particles,(or elusive dynamic entities, EDEs),that form matter, in quaternion space. Which can also be described as continuous energy changes.

I now consider EDEs and continuous change within the medium of quaternion space or the energetic quaternion framework to be the foundational elements of this model. The dimensions are spatio-energetic so any change can be described as change of position in space of material particle or of the medium, or energetic change of EDE or of an energetic field.

The observer interprets data from those spatial or energetic changes that are detected by the sense organs. That interpretation forms subjective reality.

Leshan:

"Dr. Barbour is perfectly right: there is no time in the universe"

The experimental detection of spacetime foam will be the proof that spacetime really exist. Therefore, the Barbour-Amrit's timeless theories will fall very soon.

Amrit:

Space-time foam is mind contruct, there is no space-time foam as a physical reality.

Medium in which stellar object and elementary particles move is timeless.

Best name for this medium is gravity field.

Time t is tick of clock

How they will prove existence of space-time foam ?

How time that is tick of clock can be part of space ?

What is the m/k/s meter/kilo/second of space-time ?

Where in physical space (medium in which stellar objects are) is space and where is time and what is time ?

How space and tim are coupled into space-time ?

How 1 1 can be 1

yours amrit

Hi Georgina

We have similar view regarding gravity: gravity is result of dynamics between medium in which stellar objects move and objects themselves

mass change quantum structure of gravity field and that generate gravitation

mass do not emits gravity waves

yours amri

RE: Spatially infinite Universe.

There are many solutions to GR and many more being found or proposed on-going, but I don't think we can put complete faith in all solutions & models based on it's equations. Closed time-like curves are also GR solutions, does this mean time travel, causal violation & time loops are physically real?

Cheers

Roy J

Hi Roy

new vision on time based on elementary perception is that physical time into which motion run does not exists

motion run in timeless medium-gravity field

speed of motion diminishes with gravity inreasing

we measure that with clocks - time t is a clock tick

in stronger gravity clocks "tick" slower

Yes indeed only the space is infinite and the Universe is finite ,in evolution but finite and without time it has no sense .

I think really what the whole and the walls are bad understood .And the evolution point of Vue thus???

We are not on Earth for nothing ,it's evident what it exist an ultim aim in the physicality .It's not a real end but we are on this univers and nothing can change that it seems to me .

Sincerely

Steve

The two mathematical solutions to GR which capture features of the universe we see at large are the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker solution (FLRW) and the de Sitter spacetime. These solutions obey the Hawking-Penrose energy conditions for w > -1, so there are no closed timelike conditions. The w factor is the equation of state, so for the pressure and energy density related to each other by p = wρ. for w < -1 you get the phantom energy or big rip solution. This does not likely reflect physical cosmology, and it violates the Hawking-Penrose energy conditions. The data suggests that w = -1, which conforms will to a de Sitter spacetime.

Tha de Sitter spacetime of this form is an infinite spatial surface, a Euclidean R^3, which exists in a folation of curved spacetime. What might be called the time vector field is t^a = Nn^a N^a, where the terms on the right hand side are

n^a = normal vector at each point an spatial R^3

N = lapse function, a Lagrange multiplier in ADM relativity

N^a = shift function, which tells how points on each R^3 are slid apart in the integration forwards in time.

This then gives a spacetime with flat spaces R^3 (except for local little curvatures due to stars, galaxies and dark matter clumps), where the foliation of sheets R^3 are connected by the time vector field at each point. The curvature content is then in how these spatial sheets are expanded with respect to time.

Cheers LC

Lavernce

for me you post above is mathematical philosophy

you use terms for which you do not know exact meaning

how much this math is responding to real physical world ?

yours amrit

A basic theory is a system which generates solutions. This is true of a basic F = ma problem. These spacetimes are solutions to the Einstein field equation and they have some relevance to the distant universe.

LC

The Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems are a set of results in general relativity which attempt to answer the question of when gravitation produces singularities.

A singularity in solutions of general relativity is one of two things:

1. a situation where matter is forced to be compressed to a point (a space-like singularity)

2. a situation where certain light rays come from a region with infinite curvature (time-like singularity) Wikipedia

An interesting "philosophical" feature of general relativity is revealed by the singularity theorems. Because general relativity predicts the inevitable occurrence of singularities, the theory is not complete without a specification for what happens to matter that hits the singularity. Wikipedia

In my opinion singularities and black holes result from the incompleteness of the space-time model. When the model is completed there will no longer be any need to speculate on the peculiar physics of these objects and the brilliant mathematics pertaining to them. If a singularity is just a point from 3D vector space perspective but is actually moving along the 4th spatial dimension, then rather than a black hole, and all the associated mathematics, there is just a deep gravity well. The object will be beyond visible 3D vector space within afore space. As light does not travel aft-wards along the 4th dimension it will appear as a black hole. Within the black hole will be an "unexceptional" object (or dense collection of masses) of large gravitational mass but not a singularity as such (except in the centre of that object as in the centre of gravity of all masses. Even the centre of the object is not the end of space because the 4th dimension extends on into afore space from here).The object or objects causing the appearance of a black hole is(are) just not within visible 3D space, but do still exist within quaternion space and can exert a gravitational force on other matter that is within visible 3D vector space. Matter within afore space could possibly account for the additional gravity required to hold galaxies together. That supplied by the luminous portion alone has, to my knowledge, been calculated to be insufficient.

Lawrence space-time is a math model only.

4 coordinate is not time, fourth coordinate is a X4 = c x t where t is tick of clock

Mistake is done to think that spae-time is physical reality.

Space-time is a math model that describes motion into timeless gravity field.

yours amrit

Amrit: I am not going to make arguments about the ontology of space or time. Spacetime is the field of general relativity. Fields are not really measured directly. The electric and magnetic fields in electromagnetism are inferred by how they induce the motion of currents or pondermotive effects on matter. Vic Stenger makes a big issue out of particles as the only thing which exists, while fields, wave functions, space, time and so forth are only models. Saying that x^4 = ct is just a conversion factor, which takes one measure of a coordinate (time with a clock) and converts it to a length as measured by the proper interval. Everything is moving the speed of light --- even at rest in a reference frame. This could also be argued to be "just a model." Yet, frankly I choose not to engage issues of ontology in physics as having primary importance. Physics is not in my opinion in the business of determining whether fields or wave functions and so forth are actually real or not. Quantum field theory in curved spacetime suggests that particles are frame dependent and that fields are more fundamental, which messes up ideas of particle ontology.

Georgina: Singularities are examples of geodesic incompleteness (b*-incompleteness etc), where geodesics or path come to an end at some region or point on a Riemannian manifold where curvature diverges. There are indeed differences between timelike and spacelike singularities. The Schwarzschild metric is

ds^2 = A(cdt)^2 - (1/A)dr^2 angular parts

with A = 1 - 2GM/rc^2. Now we can look at a region very close to the event horizon r = 2GM/c^2 = 2m. So we have that

A = (r - 2m)/r ~= (r - 2m)/2m, 1/A = r/(r - 2m) ~= 2m/(r - 2m)

We can write this with a further simplification with R = r - 2m and R/2m = ρ. This means the metric near the event horizon looks like

ds^2 = ρdt^2 - (1/ρ)dr^2 ...

which is the Rindler metric. As an exercise, convert dr to coordinates in ρ, set dt = 0 for a spatial surface and compute the proper distance, which will be of the form

du = dρ/sqrt{ρ}.

Now integrate this and then insert into the total metric. The equation is a hyperbola. So the proper time (interval) of an observer with a constant proper distance from the horizon defines a hyperbola. For the metric change with r < 2m the sign of the line element changes and there are spatial hyperbola with constant proper interval from r = 0, where at r = 0 there is a spacelike singularity. The region with spatial hyperbola define the trapping region of the black hole

Timelike singularities are a little stranger, but these have geodesic incompleteness within a timelike region where the above hyperbola which converge to the singularity are timelike. Generally these are problematic, for it means that causal information can end or emerge from them into the timelike region of the universe.

Lawrence B. Crowell

Lawrence space-time cannot be a physical field.

Gravity field is a physical field into which stellar objects move.

Describing gravity field with space-time model is not consistent as time is not part of gravity field. Gravity field is timeless and with clocks we measure frequency, velocity and numerical order of physical events that run in gravity field.

Math model of space-time should be understood as a mth model merelly and not as physical reality.

yours amrit

I didn't believe in strings, but this one is starting to prove the existence of superstrings! Though I still don't believe in infinities and singularities. Lawrence knows my Torus model, implying a maximum mass density of the same character as 'c'. It's what all the actual evidence shows us, and what Lagrange predicted, till some Ruski artilleryman suggested a bizzare new solution for the graph. But self consistent. That's maths for you. And I DO beleive in Goethe.

Can't say I've read the whole string, but I just couldn't get AE's definition out of my mind; That time simply exists to 'stop everything happening at once!'

If time really doesn't exist in space I shall pop out there at once and live forever. Or will my existence there with a wrist watch change that?

Hmm. Sorry to interrupt..